Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Environmental ... · factories, oil processing factories at Bahir Dar, Gondar , Zone and Woreda towns), establishment of Jawe sugar factories

Tana Sub-Basin Land Use Planning and Environmental Study project

BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page i

Amhara National Regional State

Bureau of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use

(BoEPLAU)

Tana Sub-basin Land Use Planning and Environmental Study Project

Technical report: Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment

(ADSWE, LUPESP Tabs: Volume 08/2015)

February, 2015

Bahir Dar

Client: Bureau of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use (BoEPLAU) Address: P.O.Box: 145 Telephone: +251-582-265458 Fax: (058) 2265479 E-mail: Amhara [email protected] Consultant: Amhara Design & Supervision Works Enterprise (ADSWE)

Address:

P.O.Box: 1921 Telephone: +251-582-181023/ 180638/181201/181254 Fax: (058) 2180550/0560 E-mail: amhara [email protected]

mailto:Amhara%[email protected]

mailto:amhara%[email protected]


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page ii

LIST OF REPORTS

Section I: MAIN REPORT

Section II: SECTOR STUDIES

Volume I: Soil Survey

Volume II: Forest and Wildlife Assessment

Volume III: Hydrology and Water Resource Assessment

Volume IV: Land Use and Land Cover

Volume V: Agro Climatic Assessment

Volume VI: Crop Resource Assessment

Volume VII: Watershed Management

Volume VIII: Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment

Volume IX: Human Health Assessment

Volume X Animal Health Assessment

Volume XI: Fish and Wetland Assessment

Volume XII: Sociologic assessment

Volume XIII: Economic Study

Volume XIV: Tourism Assessment

Section III PLANNING

Volume I Approaches, Procedures and Methods

Volume II Land Utilization Types Description and their Environmental

Requirements Setting

Volume III Planning Units Description

Volume IV Land Suitability Evaluation

Volume V Land Use Plan

Volume VI Management plan

Volume VII Implementation Guideline

SECTION IV ANNEXES

Maps albums and data base


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To address all constraints related with land uses and formulate sustainable development plan in Tana sub-

basin, land use planning and environmental development projected was intended with general objective of

identifying livestock production and feed resources potential, opportunities and Land Utilization Types

(LUTs) to be conducted at detail level. This was put into practiced by assessing existing livestock, feed

and other resources using appropriate data collecting and analyses methodologies.

Data collected for livestock production and feed resources study during the field work were household

data, field observation, institutional surveys, secondary data, group discussion (at kebele and woreda

level). Observations at field have been undertaken to look into livestock body condition, range condition

(feed resources). All the data (soil, climate, water sources, veterinary services, market situation,

availability of farmer training centre, and their capacities in demonstrating issues, etc) were collected

during reconnaissance and semi-detailed survey using different methodologies. Finally, all the data were

coded, entered, processed and analysed; where GIS for land use land cover and SPSS for socio-economic

survey (household) were used for data analysis and processing.

Based on data collected from Woreda offices’ of Agricultural and Rural Development (WoARD, 2013),

there are 4,225,464 major livestock (2,008,197 in TLU) in the sub-basin.

The livestock population of the sub-basin in detail in number is estimated; 2,405,113(57%) cattle,

951,982(23%) sheep, 549,778(13%) goats, 31,096 (1%) horses, 29088 (1%) mules and 258407 (6%)

donkeys in addition there are 1,924,685 poultry and 241,713 bee colonies. The livestock density of the

sub-basin in TLU is cattle 143/km2, sheep 8.07/km

2, goat 4.66/km

2, and equine 14.80/km

2. Add up

holdings 170.53 TLU/ km2 in the sub-basin. Productivity of livestock in the sub-basin has been estimated

as 120,845 ton milk, 23,010.29 ton meat, 646,375 hide and skin (number) and 967 tons eggs.

In most part of the sub-basin the production system of livestock is extensive. However, in urban and semi-

urban areas people adopted both semi-intensive and intensive production system. According to household

interview report the major water sources of the sub-basin is from river (61.6%), non developing spring

(19.2%), developing springs (1.5%), pond (9.53%),water well (8.6%, lake (5.2%) and pipe (3.0%). Totally

water requirements for livestock in the sub-basin were estimated is 26,473,477 cubic meters per annum as

calculated using FAO, 1981 guidelines. In addition more water is consumed primarily by cattle (82%)

followed by goat (7.57%) and sheep (6.10%).

During field survey in the study area it identified that the feed sources are natural grazing, crop residue,

hay, agro-industrial by-product, improved forage and others. Different forage development strategies like

area enclosure, intercropping, over sowing, hedge system and under sowing were practiced in the sub-

basin.


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page iv

Feed resources were surveyed and major natural pasture species were identified as, grasses like, Eleusine

Jaegeri, Andropogon gayana, Typha angustifolia , Cyperus rotundus, Cloris gayana, Pennisetum

purpureum, Cymbogon commulatus, Cynodon nemfuensis, Pennisetum snowdenia, Cyprus papyrus,

Snowdenia polystachya and to some extent legumes Vigna unguiculata, Medicago sativa L. and other

herbaceous species like Trifolium subterraneum used mainly during wet season when the farmland is

covered with food crops. The major browse tree species have been used for cattle feed in the sub-basin are

girar (Acacia spp), girawa (Vernonia amygdalina), chibha (Ficus thonnigii), wanza (Cordea africana,

sessa (Albizia gummifera) and sesbania (Sespania saspan), etc. Shrubs and bushes used for goats as a main

browses are girar (Acacia spp), atat (Maytensus undata), gumoro (Capparis micrantha), dokma (Sizygium

seenseuin), Kosheshelie, anfara, Atkuar and Embse (Rhus glutinosa Hochst), Embacho (Rumex nervosus),

etc.

The total production requirement of dry matter for livestock in the sub-basin is estimated to be

5,395,271.86 tons but the actual feed produced in the year was 2,996,546.24 tons with a deficit of

2,446,393.62(45.54 %) tons per annum. However, if it is consider maintenance requirement, the deficit

decreased to 1,562,060.95 ton (34.27%).

In sub-basin carrying capacity, stocking rate and stocking density were calculated based on its gazing

(browsing) area, potential of dry matter yield and presence of livestock TLU. As a result in the sub-basin

carrying capacity, stocking rate and stocking density are 0.86TLU/ha, 200 days and 1.58TLU/ha

respectively.

Based on different sources of data analyses result major Potentials identified are;

Best local livestock breeds ( Washera and Farta sheep, Fogera cattle, Tilili, Melo-Hamisit and Mecha,

Farta (Gassay) poultry, Suitable agro-climatic conditions (most of the study area has got suitable

temperature, rainfall, sunshine, wind and moisture content for both the feed resources and livestock

development), availability of huge number and diversified livestock resources (all livestock types without

camel are reared in the sub-basin), local and diversified, forage resources like local grasses, legumes and

herbs and accustomed improved forage SPPS are available in the study area, large amount of crop

residues, sufficient water sources and indigenous farmers’ knowledge for livestock and feed development.

Besides these, opportunities are available that enhance the livestock and feed resources development are

progress of different infrastructures (roads, private vet clinics at North Achefer and Mecha Woredas,

means of communication like cell-phone and electric power for some kebeles); demand and prices growth

of livestock and their products, home and market opportunities are increased (home consumption and

Sudan market), availability of different training, research and multiplication centres (Bahir Dar and Debre

Tabor Universities, Regional Agricultural Research Centre, TVTs, Bahir Dar cattle breed improvement


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page v

centre (AI), regional livestock health laboratory, Adet livestock research and improvement site, Andasa

poultry multiplication centre, agro-industries that produced by-products for livestock (Bahir Dar flour

factories, oil processing factories at Bahir Dar, Gondar , Zone and Woreda towns), establishment of Jawe

sugar factories for sources of molasses and urea-block production, availability of NGOs (About 12 NOGs

are available in the study area that support the livestock development with their intervention areas).

Constraints in the sub-basin Feed shortage

Traditional husbandry system (traditional breeding. feeding, sheltering, and marketing...)

Low health services provision (One vet clinics and one or two professionals for three Kebeles)

Budget shortage to buy improved livestock and other technologies;

Absence of policies and strategies (breeding, marketing etc.)

Low attention given to the sub-sector development by respective bodies

Pesticides application

Poor crop residue improvement

Free grazing

The expansion of eucalyptuses tree that hinder the forage and crop production, which has no use

for feed and has shed effect on feed resources.

Absences of rules or implementation to maintain natural grazing lands

Gully formation and unable to control at communal grazing land

Weed invasion and unable to control or to eradicate.

Based on the, the overall analyses result, i e. 13 primary (feed resources) and 5 secondary (livestock

species) LUTs are identified, defined and selected for further analyses and land use planning purposes.

Cattle (Dairy and fattening), sheep (Production and fattening), goat (production and fattening), poultry and

apiculture production are selected land use types (LUTs) in animal production. Similarly in feed resources

natural pasture land and improved pasture land (Avena Sativa, Vicia sativa, Chloris gayana, Medicago

sativa and Pennisetum purpureum, clover, pegon pea, cow pea and herbaceous forage trees like sesbania,

trelucern,Tagasaste, chibeha) are selected as land use types. Land use descriptions and land use

requirements rating of all livestock and feed resources land use type (LUT) have been discussed in detail

for evaluation purpose and land use planning.


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF REPORTS .................................................................................................................................... II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ III

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. X

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONMYS ............................................................................................ XI

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 General Back Ground .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 General Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................................................. 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 ADLI Strategy (2007) ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2 GIS Based Land Evaluation for selected types of LUTs in Kenya (Kassam, et, al, 1991) ........................... 4

2.3 A framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976) .......................................................................................... 5

2.4 Global Environmental Facility (GEF, 2009) Baseline Survey.................................................................... 5

3 METHODS AND MATERIALS .................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Description of the Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Materials ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 14

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 16


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page vii

4.1 Livestock Population in the Sub-Basin ...................................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 Livestock Population and Breeds .............................................................................................................. 16

4.1.1.1 Population ........................................................................................................................................ 16 4.1.1.2 Breeds .............................................................................................................................................. 17 4.1.1.3 Artificial Insemination Services ....................................................................................................... 28

4.1.2 Livestock Holdings .................................................................................................................................... 30 4.1.3 Trends of Livestock Population ................................................................................................................. 31 4.1.4 Livestock Body Bondition ......................................................................................................................... 33 4.1.5 Economic and Social Values of Livestock Resources ............................................................................... 34 4.1.6 Existing Livestock Production System ...................................................................................................... 36

4.1.6.1 Existing Cattle Production Systems ................................................................................................. 37 4.1.6.2 Existing Sheep Production Types and System ................................................................................. 40 4.1.6.3 Existing Goats Production Systems ................................................................................................. 42 4.1.6.4 Existing Poultry Production Types and System ............................................................................... 43 4.1.6.5 Existing Apiculture Production System ........................................................................................... 45 4.1.6.6 Existing Equine Production Type and System ................................................................................. 46

4.1.7 Existing Livestock Market and Marketing System.................................................................................... 47 4.1.8 Heard Structure and Estimated Feed and water Requirements .................................................................. 50

4.1.8.1 Heard Structure ................................................................................................................................ 50 4.1.8.2 Feed Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 51 4.1.8.3 Water Requirements......................................................................................................................... 52 4.1.8.4 Health Services ................................................................................................................................ 54

4.2 Feed Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 55 4.2.1 Land Use and Land Covers of the Sub-basin ............................................................................................ 55 4.2.2 Existing Feed Resource Assessment ......................................................................................................... 57

4.2.2.1 Natural Pasture (grazing and browsing) Land.................................................................................. 60 4.2.2.2 Cultivated Land ................................................................................................................................ 72 4.2.2.3 Industrial by-Products ...................................................................................................................... 77 4.2.2.4 Improved Forage .............................................................................................................................. 78

4.2.3 Major Factors Affecting Feed Resource .................................................................................................... 81 4.2.3.1 Slope ................................................................................................................................................ 81 4.2.3.2 Thermal Zone (ACZ) ....................................................................................................................... 82 4.2.3.3 Elivation ........................................................................................................................................... 83 4.2.3.4 Soil ................................................................................................................................................... 83 4.2.3.5 Rain Fall ........................................................................................................................................... 84

4.2.4 Feeding System ......................................................................................................................................... 84 4.2.4.1 Free Grazing .................................................................................................................................... 84 4.2.4.2 Cut and Carry ................................................................................................................................... 85 4.2.4.3 Crop Residues .................................................................................................................................. 86 4.2.4.4 By-products ...................................................................................................................................... 86 4.2.4.5 Other Feed Resources ...................................................................................................................... 86

4.2.5 Dry Matter Production ............................................................................................................................... 86 4.2.5.1 Natural Pastures and Herbage Production........................................................................................ 86 4.2.5.2 Crop Residue Production ................................................................................................................. 87 4.2.5.3 Aftermath Grazing ........................................................................................................................... 88

4.2.6 Feed Requirement (balance sheet) ............................................................................................................. 88 4.2.6.1 Carrying Capacity ............................................................................................................................ 89 4.2.6.2 Stocking Rate ................................................................................................................................... 90 4.2.6.3 Stocking Density (SD) ..................................................................................................................... 90

4.2.7 Existing potentials, opportunities, constraints and solutions for livestock production and feed resources 91 4.2.7.1 Potentials and Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 91 4.2.7.2 Opportunities ................................................................................................................................... 92 4.2.7.3 Problems and Constraints ................................................................................................................ 92 4.2.7.4 Solutions (Remedies) ....................................................................................................................... 95


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWEPage viii

4.3 LUT’s Descriptions and Selection Procedures ........................................................................................... 96 4.3.1 Primary LUTs ............................................................................................................................................ 97 4.3.2 Secondary LUTs ...................................................................................................................................... 102 4.3.3 Definition of management Levels for Primary and Secondary LUTs ..................................................... 105

4.4 Land Use Requirements for Relected LUTs ............................................................................................ 114

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................... 115

5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 115

5.2 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................... 115

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 119

7 ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................... 121

7.1 Summary of Collected Activities for Both Livestock Production and Feed Resources ........................... 121

7.2 Requirement Table for Primary and Secondary LUTs ........................................................................... 122

7.3 Detail Field Observation Data in Both Four Water Shad ............................................................................. 124

7.4 Gross Estimation of Values for Livestock Production and Services ........................................................ 137


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Livestock Population and distribution in the sub-basin .................................................................................. 16 Table 2 Type and distribution of livestock at ACZ ...................................................................................................... 17 Table 3: Productive parameters of local chickens at intensive level of management ................................................... 24 Table 4: Reproductive and production parameters of local poultry at village levels of management .......................... 25 Table 5: Artificial insemination and calf born in sampled woreda in the sub-basin ..................................................... 29 Table 6: Livestock holding in the Sub-Basin in number and TLU ............................................................................... 30 Table 7: Livestock holding based on HH survey result ................................................................................................ 31 Table 8: Trend of livestock population (2000-2005) .................................................................................................... 31 Table 9: LS body condition assessment result ............................................................................................................. 33 Table 10 Summary of economic and social values indicators for livestock resources ................................................. 35 Table 11: Summary of Gross estimated values of livestock in the sub-basin ............................................................... 36 Table 12: Average Estimation of LS volume and Prices in Birr .................................................................................. 48 Table 13: Summary of Livestock Marketing Data ....................................................................................................... 49 Table 14: Heard structure of cattle in the sub-basin ..................................................................................................... 50 Table 15: Heard structure of the Sheep and Goats in the sub-basin ............................................................................ 51 Table 16: Yearly feed requirement of livestock for maintenances and production per year ........................................ 51 Table 17 Major Source of Water for own Animals by HH........................................................................................... 52 Table 18: Estimated water requirement for livestock (M

3/year) .................................................................................. 54

Table 19: Area of land us/cover for resources of feed production the sub-basin ......................................................... 56 Table 20: Observation sites based on cover land cover and ACZ type ........................................................................ 60 Table 21: Identified natural pasture land feed resource species in the sub-basin ......................................................... 62 Table 22: Identified dominant grass species in the sub-basin. ...................................................................................... 65 Table 23: Identified dominant bush and/or shrub species in the sub-basin .................................................................. 68 Table 24: Identified dominant forest species in the sub-basin ...................................................................................... 69 Table 25: Identified dominant crop species in the sub-basin ....................................................................................... 74 Table 26: Summarized improved forage species strategies practiced in sub-basin ...................................................... 80 Table 27: FAO slope (degree) classification for livestock suitability ......................................................................... 81 Table 28: Number of slope classes in the sub-basin ..................................................................................................... 82 Table 29: Different classes of ACZ in the sub-basin .................................................................................................... 83 Table 30: HH survey result on impacts of free grazing ............................................................................................... 85 Table 31: Natural pasture herbage production in the sub-basin.................................................................................... 87 Table 32: Crop residue production in the sub-basin ..................................................................................................... 88 Table 33: Estimated biomass from natural pasture land, crop residue and aftermath ................................................. 88 Table 34: Major reasons aggravating feed problem in the sub-basin ........................................................................... 89 Table 35 Major Constraint of Livestock Production by HH......................................................................................... 93 Table 36: Change in scarcity of animal feed over the last recent years ........................................................................ 94 Table 37: Filtering table for primary LUTs .................................................................................................................. 98 Table 38: Filtering table for secondary LUTs ............................................................................................................ 103 Table 39: Hierarchal definition of feed resources (Primary) LUTs ............................................................................ 106 Table 40:Hierarchal definition of livestock production (secondary LUTs) ................................................................ 110


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of Tana sub-basin ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Livestock distribution rate in % at ACZ level ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Typical Zebu breeds at Fagita Lekoma ......................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Typical Fogera breed bull ............................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 5: Observation sites of Fogera and their crossed cattle breed in the sub-basin. ................................................ 20 Figure 6: Typical Farta sheep type (at Guna) ............................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Photo typical Washera sheep type (at Dangila)............................................................................................. 22 Figure 8: Washera sheep breed common distribution areas in the sub-basin ............................................................... 23 Figure 9: Traditional fattened goats at Addis Kidam market ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 10 : Best Local poultry breeds distribution ....................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Photo for Tilili, Melo- Hamusit. Gassay and Mecha Indigenous Poultry ................................................... 27 Figure 12: Livestock population trend .......................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Fattened, medium and tin body condition of cattle .................................................................................... 33 Figure 14: LS body condition assessment result .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 15: Extensive grazing system of cattle in the study area. .................................................................................. 37 Figure 16: Age at first service, calving intervals and lactation period of cattle ............................................................ 38 Figure 17: Local breeds give milk 15 litres per day at the left and 10 litre per day at the right ................................... 39 Figure 18: Small Scale intensive Dairy and Fattening Farms at Dangila (left) and Merawi (middle) Towns and

fattening at Alemtsehay kebele (chilega woreda) (at right). ............................................................................... 39 Figure 19: sheep are searching feed in North Achefer woreda (at left) and Chilega woreda (at right). ....................... 40 Figure 20: Lambing intervals for owned sheep by HH................................................................................................. 41 Figure 21: Docked Washera Sheep at Sekela town ...................................................................................................... 41 Figure 22: Washera sheep breed at Dangle and Adios Kidam Markets (at left and middle) and Farta sheep (at right).

............................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 23: Age at First kidding in years for owned goats by HH ................................................................................. 43 Figure 24 : Browsing system at North Achefer Woreda............................................................................................... 43 Figure 25: Sostu Dana local Poultry breeds at the Kebele centre, ................................................................................ 44 Figure 26: Intensive Medium Scale Poultry Production at Merawi .............................................................................. 45 Figure 27: Modern Apiculture at Ahuri Kebele North Achefer woreda (at right) and Koley-Dengose kebele in Farta

woreda (at left) by organized youths at closure area. .......................................................................................... 46 Figure 28: Jake’s at Farta woreda served for society under woreda office of Agriculture ........................................... 47 Figure: 29: Livestock markets distribution ................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 30: Tilili poultry at Addis Kidam Market a week before Easter, 2014 ............................................................. 49 Figure 31: Sheep bought at Dangila Market transported to Finot-Selam ..................................................................... 50 Figure 32: Major Water Sources Distribution for Livestock ........................................................................................ 53 Figure 33: Distribution of health services at ACZ ........................................................................................................ 55 Figure 34: Major land use/cover in the sub-basin ......................................................................................................... 57 Figure 35: Trends of feed sources in the sub-basin ...................................................................................................... 59 Figure 36: Observed grass land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin ....................................................................... 64 Figure 37: Graph shows dominant grass species .......................................................................................................... 65 Figure 38: Sample grass land at different sites of the sub-basin. .................................................................................. 66 Figure 39: Observed bush and shrub land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin ........................................................ 67 Figure 40: Bushes and shrubs land found Libo kemkem woreda in wushatirs kebele at Nechimeda got. ................... 68 Figure 41: Zafeyenguse dense forest at Embachikogunaguna kebele in Ebenat woreda. ............................................. 70 Figure 42: Wet land at North Achefer woreda exposed for over grazing ..................................................................... 71 Figure 43: settlement area used for grazing, back yard forage production and for feed storage .................................. 72 Figure 44: Collected crop residues at Denbeya Woreda but done with poor management .......................................... 73 Figure 45 Observed cultivated land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin ................................................................. 75 Figure 46: Graph shows dominant crop species .......................................................................................................... 76 Figure 47: Aftermath grazing in North Achefer woreda ............................................................................................. 77 Figure 48: Improved forage production in the sub-basin at different sites. .................................................................. 79 Figure 49: Hay produced at Chabi got by cooperative. ................................................................................................ 85 Figure 50: Encroachment of grazing land by different factors at different sites of sub-basin ..................................... 95


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONMYS

ACZ Agro Ecological Zone

AI Artificial Insemination

CL Land Cover

DM Dry Matter

FGD Focused Group Discussion

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GPS Global Positioning System

HH House Hold

ADLI

ILRI

Agricultural Development Led Industrialization

International Livestock Research Organization

LGP Length of Growing Period

LUT Land Utilisation Types

NGO Non Government Organization

PARDB Pastoral, Agricultural and Rural Development Bureau

SCI Shawl Consult International

TLU Tropical Livestock Unit


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWE Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Back Ground

At the national level, agricultural sector account for 46% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and

livestock contributes 30% to the agricultural GDP and 19% to the export earnings (Azage and Alemu,

1998). According to Befekadu and Birhanu (2000), livestock in the country contributes about 30-35% of

agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and more than 85% of farm cash income. Livestock are closely

linked to the social and cultural lives of millions of resource poor farmers for whom animal ownership

ensures varying degrees of sustainable farming and economic stability.

Livestock are an important component of farmers’ livelihoods in Tana sub-basin and integral with crop

agriculture practices. They provide traction power for land preparation, threshing, manure to uses as a fuel

as well as organic fertilizer. The natural pasture, crop residues, hay and the stubble grazing are used as

sources of feed for livestock.

In the sub-basin there are various potentials and opportunities to develop the livestock and feed resources,

nevertheless, high human and livestock population, land shortage, land degradation, feed shortage land use

conflicts for crop and feed production and subsistence livestock production practices are main features of

the sub-basin.

Tana Sub-Basin Integrated Land Use Planning and Environmental Study Project agreement is then signed

between Bureau of Environmental Protection, Land Administration and Use (BoEPLAU) i. e. the "client"

and Amhara Design and Supervision Works Enterprise (ADSWE) i.e. the “consultant" on March, 2013.

The scale of the project is detail level (1:20,000) and planned to conduct within two years period.

The sub-basin land use planning is intended to be conducted based on the assessment and compute

influences of the biophysical, social and economic factors that affect the agricultural productivity of the

land.

To realise this integrated land use planning, all resources (livestock, feed resources...) available in the sub-

basin which use land for production are surveyed at the commencement and detail survey phases. The first

phase which gives emphasise on the general situation of the livestock and feed resources is already

performed and the inception report is produced accordingly. In the second phase all relevant resources like

livestock, feed, water and infrastructures like, market, vet clinic .etc. with respect their potentials,

opportunities, constraints and solutions are surveyed using acceptable methods and techniques.



Consequently, this final report which deals with livestock production and feed resources of the Tana sub-

basin is prepared with the main objectives of identify livestock production and feed resource Land

Utilization Types (LUTs) and their problems that can be used as an input for integrated and sustainable

land Use planning in Tana sub-basin.

1.2 Scope of Study

Tana sub-basin land use and environmental study project is carried out in ANRS, which encompassed

four zones, 29 and 442 Kebeles that conducted at detail level (in 1:20,000 scales) with total areas of

1,576,096 hectare.

The scope of the study concerning to livestock production and feed resources assessment in the detail

level of study also pays special attention to assess the wide-ranging situations of livestock production

and feed resources land conditions so as to identify the best feed sources (primary) and livestock

production (secondary) development land use types at low, medium and high level of managements

and thereby to evaluate the land use types and formulate the development and management plan that

enable to bring about sustainable feed and livestock development and optimum resource utilization.

The study encompassed identification and structuring of the existing grass, wet, cultivated, bush and

shrub, forests, wood lands and other vegetation covers, identifying species composition and

determining density using sample plots and observing their management practices.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 General Objectives

To identify livestock production and feed resource Land Utilization Types (LUTs) and their problems that

can be used as an input for integrated and sustainable land Use planning in Tana sub-basin.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

To assess potentials, opportunities, problems and possible solutions of livestock development and feed

resources conditions

To identify and select, the livestock development type (LUTs) and feed resources development land

use type (LUTs)

o To identify and characterize LUR for LUTs evaluation

To formulate suitable livestock and feed resources development plan including maps at 1:20 000

scales for suitable LUTs

o Estimation of livestock population, density, holding, production and productivity of the study area



o Feed resource assessment (identification of species and composition)

o Estimation of biomass production

o Calculating the carrying capacity, stocking density (SD) and stocking rate of the study area.

o Indicated special map of institution like, vet-clinic, water point and market place.

1.4 Limitation of the Study

12 Absences of research results at particular areas like natural pasture land productivity and livestock

performance parameters at the sub-base line or at regional levels.



2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 ADLI Strategy (2007)

Until recently, no independent livestock development policies and strategies were issued and implemented.

Rather they were joined together with broad economic policies. Attempts are therefore made to review the

available livestock sub-sector development policies and strategies at present government regime at the

national and then the regional levels.

At the regional level, after the Regional Livestock Resources Development Promotion is established, some

sub-sector development strategies are formulated and have been tried to be implemented. These are cattle

breed improvement, shoats’ development improvement, feed and feeding development, apiculture

development, poultry development and fishery development strategies.

2.2 GIS Based Land Evaluation for selected types of LUTs in Kenya

(Kassam, et, al, 1991)

The main objective of these study were; to identify and characterize the major land use type in the study area

and select important ones for further study and to identify the constraining factors for the land use types

identified.

Method and steps of activities applied in this study included:

a. Pre-field works (planning and organising activities)

b. Field works (Survey)

c. Post field works (Laboratory analyses, data organizing and analysing)

d. Mapping units

d. Identification and characterisation of LUTs

e. Defining land use requirements

As a result, improved forage land use type is identified, characterized and the land requirements of

improved forage identified were moisture availability, rooting conditions, soil workability, sealing hazards

and salinity hazards, however, other climatic factors like temperature, rain fall and slope were not

considered since the production system is irrigation. In addition, the land diagnostic factors identified were

particle size class, drainage class, soil texture class, minimum rooting depth, wet consistence class,

thickness of crust, incidence of diatomite and E.C.ds/m from literature and interviews.

Therefore, it is useful to take improved forage suitable land to combine with high level of livestock

production LUTs, such as dairy and fattening.



2.3 A framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976)

The main objective of the framework was to deliver consistence land use planning theories, principles and

applications. The methods followed are application of organizing and harmonizing different scientific facts

relevance with land use planning and evaluation in the form of expertise team. As result, a land utilization

type consists of a set of technical specifications in a given physical, economic and social setting. More

Beek, 2010; gave more definitions of LUTs and LQs as that LUTs include levels of know-how, available

technology and available inputs and also the land tenure situation in as far as it indicates the degree to

which the land user can manage or overcome constraining land qualities/limitations. Subsequently, the

land use requirements (LRs) of present and probable LUTs are matched with the defined land conditions.

The land conditions are described as dynamic regimes or 'land qualities' (LQs) that have a direct effect on

the use. According to the FAO, 1976 land evaluation factors, some of the LQs that affected the

productivities of livestock are:

- Productivity of grazing land (which include soil, slop, temperature, moisture requirement

of. specific forge types)

- Climatic hardships affecting animals

- Endemic pests and diseases

- Nutritive value of grazing land

- Toxicity of grazing land

- Resistance to degradation of vegetation

- Resistance to soil erosion under grazing conditions

- Availability of drinking water.

From the same sources land qualities related with management and inputs that affect the productivity of

livestock and feed are described below

-Terrain factors affecting mechanization (traffic ability)

- Terrain factors affecting construction and maintenance of access roads (accessibility)

- Size of potential management units (e.g. forest blocks, farms, fields)

- Location in relation to markets and to supplies of inputs.

2.4 Global Environmental Facility (GEF, 2009) Baseline Survey

The goal of this project was to contribute to poverty eradication in the Lake Tana water shade through

improving ecosystem integrity and livelihood. The immediate objective is to increase household incomes

through sustainable land management practices in the Lake Tana watershed.

Methodology applied was Community-based integrated natural resources management that intended

mainly on community participatory at any level of activities and places.



As a result, it is found that within the livestock baseline survey document, LTW is a major centre of

livestock resources and genetic diversity. The Fogera wetland supports the native Fogera cattle breed. This

breed is an important gene pool for cross breeding to improve milk production in indigenous cattle. Other

livestock characteristics of the watershed, with good feed conversion traits, included the Dangla and

Washerie sheep, and Tilili chicken breeds are assessed.

Moreover, the document elaborates the traditional open access grazing system that has led to severe

degradation of grazing lands in the LTW. Furthermore, land users in the watershed own, by tradition, as

many livestock as they wish which encourages overstocking and aggravates overgrazing. In this regard, in

areas where pastures are under communal property regimes, the risk of overgrazing is particularly acute.

Land degradation with regard to livestock is caused with different incidences as of the situation of

livestock production system and objectives of livestock production a particular area. In the LTW, however,

is elaborated in the GEF project as follow.

Degradation of land in LTW with regarded to livestock production is caused by uncontrolled grazing, the

presence of a high livestock population and shrinkage of grazing land. Most of the pasturelands are

overgrazed and trampled year-round resulting in loss of biodiversity: the most palatable species in the

grasslands are being replaced by invasive alien species that have a lower feed value. This ultimately alters

ecosystem structure and integrity.

Of the many reasons, fast human and livestock population growth are caused for the over utilization of

resources computation and make stress on the land and its sources. According to GEF, the livestock

population has increased nearly by 2.9% per year in the ANRS, and this can be taken as indicative of the

LTW also. Increasing livestock populations are caused by partially by prestige attached to large livestock

holdings and free access to grazing land which is unregulated by the community. Further compounding

factors are the need for draught livestock to plough, thresh and for transport and the fact that low

productivity characterizes of the local breeds.

As of the regional livestock development constraints, the Lake Tana watershed low livestock productivity

is caused by feed shortage, inadequate health care with widespread presence of economically important

diseases and parasites, poor genetic potential of the indigenous livestock breeds and poor husbandry

practices (GEF, 2009).

Over the whole watershed area, natural pastures contribute about three quarters of the overall energy

requirement. One of the causes of feed shortage is shrinkage of grazing land due to expansion of cropland

and poor management of grazing land. With increasing human population, there is an increasing



competition for land between cropping and grazing. As a result, grazing lands reduced by 1.1% every year

because of the growth and expansion of farming into grazing lands (GEF, 2009).

Based on these general descriptions of the land–use planning process (FAO, 1996), the livestock and forge

assessment are treated as one of the main bio-physical factors that affect the production and productivity

of the land and; on the other way round they are treated as primary and secondary land use types which are

affected by other biophysical, social and economic factors directly for primary LUTs (Feed resources) and

indirectly for secondary LUTs (different species of livestock).

In the previous era livestock and forage resources were assessed, at extensive or pastoral livestock

production system (FAO, 1983) for land use planning for particular or sectoral level. During this period,

all factors affecting the rangeland productivity or for primary LUTs and for livestock productivity or for

secondary LUTs were assessed and combined to evaluate the land suitability for best use using the land

quality for primary products and then biophysical and infrastructural requirements for secondary

production.

Later on, in Ethiopia, livestock and feed resources assessment for land use planning at the national level

was conducted with the FAO assistances (FAO, 1984). At this time, all feed resources from natural

grazing land, crop residues, aftermath grazing, improved forage and all livestock types with their

respective parameters were assessed to determine the land carrying capacity, over or under stoking and

then to enhance alternative development option for both livestock and forge.

Finally, grassland resources assessment at crop-livestock farming system for land use planning at Haikoch

and Butajira Aweraja in Ethiopia was conducted with the assistance FAO, (2000). The objective was to

assess livestock and forge resources for land use planning purposes. Major, parameters; for grazing land

resources assessment were, DM production, major characteristics of grass land, investigation of plant

associations, estimation of forge productivity and quality and description of seasonal pattern of grassland

quality.

In Amhara Regional State, major agricultural system is crop-livestock mixed type, as a result, land is

under computation for crop and livestock (forge) Production. The present situation indicated that arable

land is increased with the expenses of grazing land (feed resources) and then quantity and quality feed

produced from grazing land is declined and poor feed from crop residues are increased. Under this

complex interaction livestock specially oxen provide power for crop land cultivation and feed from crop

residues for livestock are undividable functions.

The livestock production systems in the region are more of extensive type and some are in the semi

intensive and very few in intensive types. The most dominant ones which are the extensive types are



characterized by mixed livestock rearing, subsistence production, on communal grazing system, more of

traditional husbandry or production system. In general it is subsistence and under low input-low output

production level.

So, cognizing the general land-use planning principles and the overall socio-economic situations of the

study areas , the livestock and grazing land resources in the detail level and semi-detail of land use

planning study project level will be assessed, evaluated and proper land use types will be identified and fit

with the proper land type.

Lessons learnt From all above literature review many useful massages are captured for the purposes of study

methodology development and use as a tool for t his detail study.

From the national development policies and strategies it is recognized that yet no exclusive livestock

development policies are formulated and issued which is true for the Amhara National Regional State and

the Lake Tana Watershed too. However, the special attention given by the ADLI and PASDEP II and

preparation of National Livestock Development Master Plan at the national level and started up of some

sub-livestock development strategies at the regional level crated promising clue for better livestock

development in the study area. So the detail study will be addressed based on these objective realities.

At the national and regional level, the livestock development constraints (feed, health, genetics potential,

management, etc.) are well identified and sited at any literature. The availability of these constraints in the

LTW is also confirmed by GEF. Furthermore, the grazing system, the degree of land degradation, the

availability of Fogera cattle, Washera sheep and Tilili Poultry are grossly elaborated and the lessons put

on here are how and what shall be included in the detail study methodologies for further understanding of

potentials, opportunities, constraints and remedies of the sub sector.

From the FAO, land evaluation framework and pertinent documents, it is more understand that how the

LUTs are identified and characterized and then how the Land qualities are studied. Therefore the sub-

sector primary and secondary LUTs and their requirements will be selected and studied with the base of

acceptable principles and guidelines.

Finally, from Land Evaluation Report at Lake Naivasha Basin in Kenya, it is better recognized that the

livestock sub-sector land use planning with the integrated manner will be conducted based on GIS and

pertinent planning tools. Moreover the land requirements or land quality and diagnostic factors

identification and determination process and application of GIS for final land evaluation were learnt as it is

prerequisite.



3 METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

Tana sub-basin is found in the Amhara region. Geographically, the basin is located between 1210691m to

1410799.77m North latitude and 253026.62m to 417182.92m East longitude. Its elevation is ranging 1327-

4109 meter above sea level. The basin has a total area of 1579096.9 hectares. It is one of the most

important potential areas for all development in the region. The largest lake in Ethiopia, Lake Tana is

found in the sub-basin.

Tana sub-basin encompasses parts or the whole of 29 Woredas from four zones adminstratives. These

include Banja, Fageta Lekuma and Dangila Woredas in Awi zone; Sekela, South Achefer, North Achefer,

Mecha and BahirDar Zuria Woredas in West Gojjam zone; Dera, Estie, Farta, Libo Kemkem, Ebinat and

Fogera Woredas in South Gondar zone; Gondar Zuria, Wogera, Lay Armachiho, Dembia, Chilga, Alefa

and Takusa in North Gondar zone. In addition it also includes town administration.

Figure 1 Map of Tana sub-basin

Human population in Tana sub-basin is generally homogeneous linguistically and consists of the main

ethnic families of Amhara. According to CSAs 2007 census and Woredas, the study area has a total

population of 3,103,231 with male 1,563,276and female 1,539,955 this is about 15.8 percent of the total

regional population. The very big proportion or 75.8 percent of the population of the area is living in rural



areas where as the remaining 24.2 percent are concentrated in urban and semi-urban centres. The

settlement pattern of the study area is 56% scattered and 44% clustered and the average population density

of the area is 292 persons per km square.

The sub-basin is endowed with eight different agro-climatic zones namely, moist tepid, sub-humid tepid,

moist cool, moist warm, moist cold, moist very cold, sub-humid cool and sub-humid cold. Most of the

project area (79.4%) is found in moist tepid agro-climatic zone followed by sub-humid tepid, moist cool

and sub-humid cool which account for 12%, 5% and 3% respectively. The area is dominated by one main

rainy season, from June to September and one dry season between October and May. The rainfall

distribution of area is controlled by the northward and southward movement of the inter-tropical

convergence zone (ITCZ) resulting in a single rainy season.

River Megech, Rib, Gumara and Gilgel Abbay are the main permanent water resources in the Basin,

However, the Megech and Rib rivers sometimes dries-up at downstream during the dry seasons. Both

Rivers used to supply water for human and livestock consumption and also for crop irrigation. The others

seasonal rivers originate from the upper in the mountainous range in the north and in hilly zones in the

inter-riverine area of river Megech and Rib are also other sources of water. River Infranz, River Jema,

River Awra Arda, River Derba, River Arno-Garno, River Shine, River Selamko, River Dengura are

some of prominent seasonal rivers found in the study area.

The sub-basin is one among the other agrarian areas of the nation, where by Agricultural field crop

production is predominantly prevailing. With this respect, Agriculture production is the mainstay for the

livelihood of people in the sub-basin. Beyond the presence of huge arable land resource, the sub-basin is

adequately endowed with a wide variety of indigenous plants with a unique heritage of diverse germplasm

of vegetables, fruits, oil crops, forages, tubers, cereals and pulses. Teff, Noug, safflower, rape seed, caster

bean, Gesho, are among indigenous plants grown in the basin. Maize, sorghum, beans, barley finger millet,

wheat, chickpea and others are commonly grown crops.

Livestock constitutes a major part of the farming system next to crop production, providing draft power,

producing milk and conferring a certain degree of security against crop failures. However, performance in

the production of the major food commodities of livestock origin has been poor compared with other

African countries, including neighbouring Kenya (IFAD/EPLAUA, 2007). Inadequate feed and nutrition,

widespread diseases and poor health, poor breeding stock, and infrastructure have been cited as major

constraints affecting livestock performance.

Forest resource offer the main energy supply is one of the most dynamic economic activity in sub-basin; it

also contribute to sustainable agricultural systems; and are a source for agro-biodiversity and a major

storehouse for carbon and water. However, Forest resource in the sub-basin is being depleted, biodiversity



is declining, timber and non-timber forest products and services are weakened and most of the important

biological endemic species, that have a potential to sustain the livelihood in the basin, are now vulnerable.

The sub-basin is rich in fish and wetland resources. However the fishery of Lake Tana is at an early stage

of development due to low level of technology employed by fishery man and a lack of marketing facilities.

On other hand the wetlands resources also declining due to ever-increasing population in the study area

coupled with inappropriate land use and wetland management system.

The position of the basin in its cultural heritage is remarkable. For example, Some 37 islands and 21

monasteries surviving remnants of a very old meditative tradition have been used as safe keeping places

for the religious relics and art treasures during the times of trouble. And these monasteries from all corners

of the country have architectural significances, beautiful mural paintings and icons, as well as numerous

strikingly illustrated parchments and intricately decorated processional and hand crosses. It is also house

myriads of treasures, beautiful mural paintings, icons, parchment manuscripts, scrolls and emperors assets.

However, efforts and progress made on archaeological searches for historical values in the area are still at

infancy. As a result, most of the attractions including those that have been declared world heritage by

UNESCO have long suffered from severe deterioration by both natural calamities and human interferences

3.2 Materials

Material availed and utilised for field survey were tape meters with 50m scale, digital cameras, GPSs, lap

tops and cars with the other resources experts.

3.3 Methods

The study tried to collect qualitative and quantitative data collection methods combined in a creative and

logical manner so as to capture relevant information to address the study objective.

Data for this study was gathered from four zones and 29 woredas that are included in the sub-basin. The

study involved secondary and primary sources of data of both qualitative and quantitative natures. The

secondary sources of information include books, research journals and articles, internet sources, different

reports and document review at different levels of government bodies. These can grasp the background

information, the trends, descriptions of the area and land use types and lessons and experiences that helped

to look and understand the issues under study.

Data was collected from secondary sources using appropriately designed data collecting sheets and

formats. The existing livestock population, breed type, livestock holding, feed sources, forage species,

forage strategies, etc. of the sub-basin data were collected mainly from concerned woreda and zone



offices. However, there is a general lack of organized and well-documented data and information both at

woreda and zone offices.

Some secondary data were collected for inception purposes from different sources at various levels. To

enrich the data additional secondary data were collected at Kebeles, Woredas, Zones, bureaus and other

organizations at the regional levels with personnel communication and at national and international level

with electronic Medias (internets).

The other important source of data in the study was the primary sources to obtain first hand information on

the thematic issues like existing land use types, potentials, problems, constraints and remedies of both in

feed resources and livestock production. The sources of the information were key informants, focus

groups, field observation and household samples.

Data Collection Instruments

The field study combined Key Informant Interviews (KIIS), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Household

Surveys, Direct Observations and Transect Walks. Semi-structured checklists were designed to manage

the FGDs and KIIS. Structured and semi-structured interview schedule were developed to undertake the

household survey.

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)

Key informant interviews were conducted at woreda and kebele level with different individuals at different

levels who have sufficient knowledge on the existing farming practices, land use changes, input use trends,

major problems that hinder feed resources and livestock production and opportunities to enhance

production and productivity.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

Information was also gathered through focus group discussion focused on general and specific aspects of

potentials and constraints of feed resources and livestock production of the study area. Semi-structured

interview technique was employed to collect qualitative and quantitative data from group discussions

using a checklist. The group discussions were held at kebele and woreda level on purposely selected

representatives on general issues that were listed in the checklist. Since, the interview was aimed at

generating information on certain specific issues; a checklist was used on some of the predetermined

questions. Following and depending on the response of farmers, a series of specific follow-up questions

were asked on the subject of interest. As per farmers’ interest the interview was scheduled mainly on

holidays. This method of data collection may be very vital as it helps easily to cover wide range of issues

that could require high time and financial resources through household surveys.



Field Observations

Primary data to assess plant species and composition from different land cover like grassland, bush/shrub

land wet land, built up areas, cultivated land and forest land the following method was applied.

Appropriate base map was prepared from the review of existing relevant information like, small scale map

with classification that was uniform with respect to bio-physical conditions for the production of crops,

livestock and forest products. For land use and land cover base map preparation, Land sat imagery having

30m resolution was used using 4, 5, 3 band combination, Image classification and interpretation was

undertaken. Accordingly major and minor land use and land covers were recognized in the study areas. As

a result eight major relevant land covers types i.e. grassland, bush/shrub land; wetland, cultivated land,

forest land, Afro-alpine and sub-afro-alpine vegetation, water bodies and built-up areas were identified and

quantified for assessment sites determination.

The ACZ map of the study area was prepared based on LGP and thermal zone as moist tepid, moist cold,

moist cool, sub-humid tepid, sub-humid cold and sub-humid cool ACZs were identified and quantified for

assessment sites determination.

The slope classification was conducted using digital elevation model method and as a result seven classes

of slopes were identified and quantified for the assessment sites determination. Finally, these three

independent maps were intercepted and a representative samples from each cover type were determined

based on their cover size. Then data collection at each observation point was conducted at 200m2

(4mx50m) area using tape metre and data recording formats. Achievements of observation points against

the plan are indicted in Table 20.

The livestock body condition observation sites were selected at and/or the nearby to the feed resources

assessment sites using the same map at which livestock were assumed to be available there. Then data

were collected by stratified the herd by species and using digital camera to take pictures in the zoom in and

zoom out techniques (PET, 2011). Body condition done in two ways visual observation and tape meter

measurement, but in this field work it was done using visual observation since the area is very wide and

difficult to measure using tape meter.

Visual Observation at Field Level

Visual observation is done in all woredas and at different Agro-climatic Zone (ACZ) on different livestock

species (cattle, sheep and goat) in the sub-basin. Matured animal (both female and male) selection is made

from herd in the field level on herd by looking the whole parts of the animal, especially spinouts process,

transverse process, sternum and sterna; these parts used for estimating the presence of fat and muscle.



Then scale is given from one to five body condition by scoring. Then score is given from one to five scale

of body condition considering the following points.

Scale 1 =Emaciated animals with no apparent subcutaneous fat. Spinouts processes in the lumbar region

feel sharp

Scale 2=Individual spinouts processes are still fairly sharp to touch and ribs can be seen individually

Scale 3=Spinouts processes can be felt, but have a rounded feel and ribs cannot be seen individually

Scale 4=Individual spinouts processes can only be felt with firm pressure and point of hips are covered

with fat and are rounded

Scale 5=Spinouts processes cannot be felt even with firm pressure. Animal has a blocky appearance.

The livestock body condition observation sites were selected at and/or the nearby to the feed resources

assessment sites using the same map at which livestock were assumed to be available there. Then data

were collected by stratified the herd by species and using digital camera to take pictures in the zoom in and

zoom out techniques. Finally, data of institutions were collected using trained data collectors under close

supervision of experts.

Household Surveys

Detailed information was derived through survey from sampled households. Qualitative and quantitative

data was collected through household survey using structured interviews that were administered on

randomly selected 4002 household heads in 23 Woredas and 100 selected kebeles. It was done based on

the prevailing agro-climatic zone (ACZ) within the project area. The survey was conducted to obtain data

such as major feed resources and livestock production in the area, the existing breed, forage species, input

use, major potentials, limitations and constraints of feed resources and livestock production and other

related data.

3.4 Data Analysis

A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was employed for data analysis. Quantitative

analysis was employed using Excel and SPSS version 20 soft ware as a help in the overall process of data

management and analysis. The data were edited and coded before entering into the cells of SPSS. Various

statistical techniques such as percentages cross tabulations and averages were used for quantitative data

analysis.

Qualitative information recorded on notebook from observation, FGDs, conversations and interviews with

key individuals were organized and constructed coherently and analyzed based on theoretical and

conceptual frameworks. The results of the key findings were displayed in the form of narrations, case



stories, graphs, charts and tables. Pictures were also provided as evidence and to support the qualitative

information where appropriate.

Dry matter yield calculated from natural vegetation based on land use/cover, crop residues (cereals, pulses,

oil crops, fruits and vegetables, etc) and aftermath. In addition carrying capacity, stocking rate and

stocking density estimated side by side. Species composition derived from total observed points that

available for feed resources.



4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Livestock Population in the Sub-Basin

Existing livestock production assessment in the land use planning process is eternal. As a result, type,

distribution, herd structure, production parameters, production system, feed requirement, constraints,

remedies and LUTs are assessed in the sub-basin for the purposes of Tana sub-basin detail land use

planning.

4.1.1 Livestock Population and Breeds

4.1.1.1 Population

Livestock types available in the study area are cattle, sheep, goats, equines, poultry and apiculture. Based

on data collected from Woreda offices’ of Agricultural (2013), there are 4,225,464 major livestock

(2,008,197 in TLU) in the sub-basin. The share of them i.e. cattle, sheep, goats and equines are 57%, 23%,

13% and 8% in that order. As of CSA data (2011), the sub-basin has got 59% of cattle, 21% of sheep and

18% ofgoats in the region which indicated that cattle has proportional, share in the region but shoats and

equines have got less. Furthermore, 1,924,685 poultry and 241,713 bee hives have been found in the sub-

basin with the largest share of local poultry and traditional bee hives in Table 1.

Based on the HH survey result; however, the sub-basin has got 3,687,733(2,581,413TLU) cattle,

1,678,645(167,864.5TLU) sheep and 548,534 (54,853.4 TLU) goats which are somehow more than the

data that is collected before a year from secondary sources.

Table 1: Livestock Population and distribution in the sub-basin

Sources, WoARD, 2013

Livestock distribution in the sub-basin based on ACZ is assessed and the result is summarized at the

following table and figure. As per the present climatology data, the sub-basin has got about 90% cover of

S No Livestock type

Quantity in % from

Remark Number Conversion factor TLU Number TLU

1 Cattle 2405113 0.7 1683579 57 83.84

Fro

m m

ajo

r

liv

esto

ck

2 Sheep 951982 0.1 95198.2 23 4.74

3 Goats 549778 0.1 54977.8 13 2.74

4 Horses 31096 0.8 24877 1 1.24

5 Mules 29088 0.7 20362 1 1.01

6 Donkeys 258407 0.5 129204 6 6.43

Sub Total 4225464 - 2008197 100 100

7 Poultry 1924685

100

Local 1809460 94

Fr

o m

P ou

ltr

y

Improved 115225 6

8 Bee Hives 241713 100

Modern 18741 8

Fro

m

Bee

Hiv

e

s

Transitional 3120 1

Traditional 219852 91



moist tepid and moist cool ACZs (36%MT and 20% MC). Accordingly, more than 60% of major livestock

are found within these ACZs. This implies that, more emphasises shall be given for milk and meat

development intervention at these ACZs where the largest area coverage and major livestock population

are distributed.

Table 2 Type and distribution of livestock at ACZ

Type of livestock

Owned by HH

Distribution rate of Livestock at ACZ by %

Moist Tepid

Moist

cold Moist cool Sub-humid tepid Sub-humid cool

Cattle 74 0 3 16 6

Sheep 58 3 10 17 12

Goats 83 1 5 9 2

Donkeys 74 0 7 15 4

Horses 0 12 0 11 77

Mules 0 23 0 51 26

Poultry 0 0 12 72 16

Bee hives 0 0 0 74 26

Figure 2: Livestock distribution rate in % at ACZ level

Sources HH survey result፣ 2014.

4.1.1.2 Breeds

a. Cattle

Data collected from secondary sources revealed that 2,405,113 cattle are available in the sub-basin.

Improved breeds found in the study area are Holsteins Friesians crossed with local Fogera breed for the

purposes of improving milk production and accounted only 1.15% of the total cattle.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

pe

rce

nta

ge o

f li

vest

ock

dis

trib

uti

on

pe

r A

CZ

Moist Tepid

Moist cold

Moist cool

Sub humid tepid

Sub humid cool

Key

Livestock types



These crossed breeds are mostly distributed at regional town (Bahir Dar), Zone and Woredas town and in

the nearby areas where better markets, feed resources, infrastructures like AI service, water, health

services etc are easily accessible. These areas then shall be specialized for meat and milk improvement

sites since all land requirements are available there. The indigenous cattle breeds found in the sub-basin

are generally categorized into two i.e. the well known Fogera, the other Zebu and the hybrid of these two.

The indigenous other Zebu cattle are characterized by small size, low productivity potential and distributed

at all areas of the sub-basin except at the border of Lake Tana. They have however good potential to

withstand the harsh environmental conditions and poor cattle husbandry practices.

Figure 3: Typical Zebu breeds at Fagita Lekoma

Source: Photo ADSWE, 2013

Fogera breed is mostly found at Fogera and Dera Woredas dominantly at the right hand side of the main

Asphalt road from Bahir dar to Gondar of South Gondar Zone. Furthermore, the breed and its crossed are

found at parts of Woredas bounded with Lake Tana like Fogera, Libo Kemkem, Dembia, Gonder Zuria,

Alefa, Takusa, North Achefer and Bahir Dar Zuria woreda. Observation sites for this breed are located in

the map 5 at kebele level.

Figure 4: Typical Fogera breed bull

Source: Photo ADSWE, 2014 at Mecha Market



According to ILRI, 1982, the total population of the Fogera breed is estimated to be 800,000 which are

33% of the present cattle population of the sub-basin. The breed is well known for milk and meat

production either by themselves or crossing with the improved breeds. As a result the area around the Lake

Tana shall be specialized for the Fogera breed development intervention areas, for milk and meat

production, for research and breed in-situ conservation areas. However, this breed reared in the area with

different problems such as breed dilution, feed shortage, diseases, wet land change to rice production, etc.

So it will be one intervention area in the future.



Figure 5: Observation sites of Fogera and their crossed cattle breed in the sub-basin.

Sources: Field observation, WoARD, 2013



b. Sheep

951,982 sheep in Table 1 are found in the sub-basin. All sheep are (100%) local type or breed. The local

sheep breeds in the sub-basin grossly are classified as Farta and Washera types. The Farta type are located

dominantly at North and South Gondar Zones and characterised as medium body size, mutton type, black,

white, the combination of these colours and best to be crossed with the local best and /or improved breeds

( Washera, Awasi, Dorper).

Figure 6: Typical Farta sheep type (at Guna)

Sources: Photo ADSWE, 2014

The washera (Dangila) sheep is found mostly at West Gojjam and Awi Zones in the sub-basin. The

dominate colour is white, red, the combination of these two and sometimes black.

The Weigh of the Washera sheep at birth, weaning and six months of age are 2.8, 13.8 and 22.7Kg

(ESGPIP, 2008).Then the breed can be taken as a potential for commercial mutton production for local

and export markets as well as for improving other local breeds in the sub-basin. Data collected from key

informants during the field survey indicated that age at first service for Washera sheep is 8-12 months by

more than 60% of the respondents. The remaining showed at 3, 5 and 6 months of age. This implies that

age at first lambing is 13-17months for 60% of the respondents which agreed with the result of

Mengisties’ study (Mengistie, et, al, 2011) that stated at 15 months. Besides these, more than 70% of the



respondents confirmed that only 15-20% of ewes give twin birth but the non Washera type found

especially at Dangila Woreda and the crossed with Washera gave almost 100% twins.

.

Figure 7: Photo typical Washera sheep type (at Dangila)

Sources: Photo ADSWE, 2013



Figure 8: Washera sheep breed common distribution areas in the sub-basin

Sources: Field observation, WoARD, 2013

c. Goats

There are 549,778 (54,977.8 TLU) goats in the sub-basin and it accounts 2.74% from major livestock

types. All goat breeds found in the region are local types. The known goats breeds distributed in the sub-

basin are the Western Highland goats (Gondar and Gojjam) types distributed at all parts of the sub-basin.

Nothing has tried yet to characterise the goat’s type in the region and so at the sub-basin level.

The goats found in the sub-basin are related to the central highlands goat’s types. They are relatively, tall

and have a concave facial profile. Most body colour is plain and patchy and spotted pattern. Most of them

have horns and that are straight and backward oriented. Goat’s milk is not consumed in the sub-basin.

Since they are tall and have medium body size, they are supposed to be potential for crossbreeding with

improved type like Bore of South Africa.



Figure 9: Traditional fattened goats at Addis Kidam market

Sources: Photo ADWE, 2013

d. Poultry

From secondary data resources, 1,924,685 poultry are found in the sub-basin. 1,809,204 (94%) are local

types and the rest (6%) are improved which most of them are distributed from Andasa poultry

multiplication and distribution centre. The indigenous are many in type and only 3.i.e .Tilili,Melo-Hamusit

and Gassy types are molecularly characterized and 6 types i.e. Tilili,Melo-Hamusit , Gassay, Farta, Mecha

and Gasgie are phonotypical characterised. Accordingly, the phenotypic characters of these poultry types

are summarized in the annex part.

Research on the four indigenous poultry types found in the sub-basin had already conducted (2007) and

the result indicated that both the phonotype and genotype result of the local chickens have good potential

for further selection and improvement for poultry egg and meat production at small and medium level of

production in the village.

Some of the productive parameters found in the research with the comparison of RIR are given at the

following table.

Table 3: Productive parameters of local chickens at intensive level of management

Halima (2007)

Based on these parameters the Mecha type poultry has the best result than all the local types and Melo-

Hamusit and Tilili have almost equivalent result. Some of the parameters also indicated that the local types

S No Parameters Local Poultry types

RIR Melo-Hamusit Farta/Gassa

y

Mecha Tilili

1 Mean day-old weight/bird(gram) 26.26 25.55 27.88 27.17 35.24

2 Mean body weight/bird(g) at 4 weeks age 137.50 118.60 146.00 134.00 136.70

3 Mean body weight/bird(g) at 8 weeks 277.30 247.10 321.80 284.50 275.50

4 Mean body weight/bird(g) at 22 weeks 1222.43 1038.42 1256.80 1191.25 1394.09

5 Mean body weight/bird(gram)-male at 44 weeks 2430.50 1721.17 2172.17 2029.00 2314.00

6 Mortality rate (%) at 4 weeks age 14.17 20.75 12.87 27.30 7.41

7 Mortality rate (%) at 8 weeks age 2.7 6.2 5.30 5.8 1.80



have got better result than RIR.i.e.the Melo-hamusit type has more body weight at age four, eight, and

forty four weeks than RIR.

Table 4: Reproductive and production parameters of local poultry at village levels of management S .No Parameters Local poultry types RIR

Melo-Hamusit Farta/Gassay Mecha Tilili

1 Age at point of lay( days) 168.33 158.67 153.00 157.33 149.67

2 No of egg /hen/day 0.42 0.36 0.42 0.40 0.54

3 No of egg /hen/year 154.20 132.40 154.7 147 197.4

4 Egg mass /hen/day(g) 16.00 13.90 17.70 17.4 23.3

5 Mean egg weight (g) at extensive LM 34.56 36.81 39.87 41.75 47.56

6 Mean egg weight (g) at intensive LM 41.88 31.73 31.90 37.80 56.73

Source, Halima (2007)

As per the research result, all local poultry type have got promising potential for egg production than the

previous literatures that stated local poultry produce egg at extensive level of management not more than

107egg per hen per year 65 eggs per layer per year, 60 eggs per layer per year for exotic, package and

local chicken respectively (RHSES, 2003). Melo-Hamusit type also has peculiar characters that produce

more egg mass at intensive level of management than other local types which indicated that this type is

more promising for commercial level of production at intensive level of management in the sub-basin.



Figure 10 : Best Local poultry breeds distribution

Sources, Field observation, WoARD, 2013

Pictures taken from field observation and secondary sources are presented bellow

I.Tilili Poultry

Sources, Photo ADSWE, 2013



II. Melo-Hmusit and Gassay Poultry

II.Mech Poultry Figure 11: Photo for Tilili, Melo- Hamusit. Gassay and Mecha Indigenous Poultry

Sources, for I and II, Halima, 2007

f. Bee

Collected data from different sources indicated that 241713 bee hives are found in the sub-basin. Local

type accounted 91% of the total. Common bee type produced in the basin are Apis mellifera monticola and

Apis mellifera bandasii, (Kerealm et, al. 2009), which have the widest environmental adaptations in the

world.

f. Equines

Local type of horse, mules, and donkeys are available in the study area with the total number of 318,591.

No attempt is done to characterise and improves the local equines, but at Farta, Estie and Chilga Woredas

offices of Agriculture and Rural Development, some efforts have been done to improve the vigorous and

power of mules by bringing Sinar Aheyya (father of the Mule) from Sudan to cross with locale mares.



4.1.1.3 Artificial Insemination Services

Traditional breeding is common in all livestock breeds in the sub-basin; however, artificial insemination

services for cattle and exotic breeds’ distribution and best local sheep breed for cattle, poultry and sheep

improvement are given or distributed. Now a day’s office of agriculture gives pregnant heifers through

extension package for farmers. These heifers give calves and they are crossed with the local ones to

improve the breed in the sub-basin. The data collected during field survey show very poor AI activities

performances. As shown in the Table 5, the cow given AI services and number of calves born are 5.03%

and 1.59 % respectively. This indicated that due attention should be given to improve the local breeds with

well designed strategy in a sustainable manner.



Table 5: Artificial insemination and calf born in sampled woreda in the sub-basin

NO Woreda Activities 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 total

cattle

population

expected No of

cows to give birth

% of cows serviced with

AI and calves born

1 S/achefer No of cows serviced (AI) 331 258 186 221 161 1157 175655 35131.00 3.29

No of calves born 187 167 119 139 104 716 - 35131.00 2.03

2 Dangila No of cows serviced (AI) 345 294 332 272 257 1500 62138 12427.60 12.07

No of calves born 61 41 40 42 33 217 - 12427.60 1.75

3 Estie No of cows serviced (AI) 232 192 142 129 55 750 28422 5684.40 13.19

No of calves born 127 96 97 87 31 438 - 5684.40 7.71

4 Sekela No of cows serviced (AI) 26 49 22 17 4 118 32119 6423.80 1.84

No of calves born 18 29 13 11 4 75 - 6423.80 1.17

5 Fagita lakoma No of cows serviced (AI) 332 - - - - 332 43564 8712.80 3.81

No of calves born 190 - - - - 190 - 8712.80 2.18

6 Banja shigudad No of cows serviced (AI) 104 1 - - - 105 9365 1873.00 5.61

No of calves born 4 1 - - - 5 - 1873.00 0.27

7 Dera No of cows serviced (AI) 314 180 61 10 45 610 113274 22654.80 2.69

No of calves born 47 47 - 22654.80 0.21

8 Mecha No of cows serviced (AI) 511 536 678 615 581 2921 193029 38605.80 7.57

No of calves born - - - - - - - 38605.80 -

9 Takusa No of cows serviced (AI) 74 152 121 55 27 429 68854 13770.80 3.12

No of calves born - - - - - - - 13770.80 -

10 Alefa No of cows serviced (AI) 36 47 - - - 83 64416 12883.20 0.64

No of calves born 22 19 - - - 41 - 12883.20 0.32

11 Wogera No of cows serviced (AI) 71 59 31 39 24 224 18294 3658.80 6.12

No of calves born 10 7 5 15 5 42

3658.80 1.15

12 L/armachiho No of cows serviced (AI) 267 236 193 125 90 911 116717 23343.40 3.90

No of calves born 133 103 61 53 49 399 - 23343.40 1.71

13 G/zuria No of cows serviced (AI) 355 348 345 174 170 1392 200719 40143.80 3.47

No of calves born 50 55 43 52 20 220 - 40143.80 0.55

14 Chilega No of cows serviced (AI) 818 641 533 485 269 2746 119933 23986.60 11.45

No of calves born 494 475 405 280 166 1820

23986.60 7.59

15 Ebenat No of cows serviced (AI) 221 68 119 8 - 416 115209 23041.80 1.81

No of calves born 48 42 38 3 - 131 - 23041.80 0.57

Total

No of cows serviced (AI) 4037 3061 2763 2150 1683 13694 1361708 272341.60 5.03

No of calves born 1391 1035 821 682 412 4341 - 272341.60 1.59



4.1.2 Livestock Holdings

Total human population and house hold heads in the sub-basin are 3,103,231and 689,607 respectively

(BoFED, 2014). Livestock population collected from secondary sources is indicted at Table 1. Estimation

of livestock from these corresponding values indicated that the largest share per total area and household is

cattle which are 143TLU and 2.4 TLU followed by equine in 14.8TLU and 0.25 TLU respectively in detail

indicated in Table 7 below. In addition each livestock species holding based on household data indicated

in the annex part of this document.

Table 6: Livestock holding in the Sub-Basin in number and TLU

Livestock Holdings in the Sub-Basin in number and TLU Sub-total in

Poultry

Bee

hives Parameters

Cattle Sheep Goats Equines

Number TLU Number TLU Number TLU Number TLU Number TLU

Total LS (in number and

TLU) 2405113 1683579 951982 95198.2 549778 54977.8 318591 174443 4225464 2008197 1924685 241713

Animals Per Total

*Area(

Km2)but water and

town 204 143 80.75 8.07 46.63 4.66 27.02 14.80 358.40 170.53 152 19

Animals per

Agricultural area (KM2) 291 204 115.18 11.52 66.52 6.65 38.55 21.11 511.25 243.28 219 27

Animals per

major feed

resources area 907 634 359.01 35.90 207.33 20.73 120.14 65.78 1593.48 756.41 737 93

Animals per

Total HH 3.5 2.4 1.38 0.14 0.80 0.08 0.46 0.25 6.13 2.87 3.8 0.4

Animals per Agricultural

HH 4.6 3.2 6.21 0.62 3.59 0.36 2.08 1.14 27.57 5.32 3.7 0.5

Sources: Computed from different sources (CSA 2007, WoARD, 2013, Land Cover, 2014)

Total Human population = 3103231; Total HH= 689607; Agricultural population=2353029; Agricultural

HH= 522895

Sources, BoFED, 2014



Table 7: Livestock holding based on HH survey result

S. No Type of LS

average holdings

per HH HH

Total livestock

population

1 cattle 6 3687733

oxen 2

66

088

4

1057414

cows 2 978108

heifers 1 469228

bulls 1 561751

calves 1 621231

2 Sheep 3 1678645

3 Goats 1 548534

4 Horses 0.1 72697

5 Mules 0.1 52871

6 donkeys 0.7 469228

7 Chicken 4123916

8 Local 6 3852954

9 Improved 0.4 270962

10 Bee hives 495663

11 Traditional 1 403139

12 Transitional 0.040 26435

13 Modern 0.1 66088

Sources, HH Survey result (2013)

4.1.3 Trends of Livestock Population

Table 8: Trend of livestock population (2000-2005)

A livestock trend analysis is estimated based on data collected from CSA consecutive years sample

survey result. The collected data included the national, regional and the study area for the comparisons

purposes. To estimate the sub-basin livestock population, the four zones data are taken as

Cattle Sheep Goats

2000

National 47570675 26117272 21709428

Amhra 11757295 9469746 5468624

Tana sub-besin 5914315 3204138 2484942

2001

National 49297898 25017218 21884222

Amhra 12748995 8987694 6022105

Tana sub-besin 6258457 3264591 2461882

2002

National 50884005 25979919 21960706

Amhra 12746768 8596993 4878462

2003

National 53382194 25509004 22786946

Amhra 13371486 8679879 5176309

Tana sub-besin 6811053 2970340 2134849

2004

National 52129017 24221384 22613105

Amhra 13354797 8227862 5189432

Tana sub-basin 6594182 2755316 2040805

2005

National 53990061 25489204 24060792

Amhra 13766923 8825061 5102580

Tana sub-besin 7527814 2974404 2098703

Sources, CSA, 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005



representative data for the sub-basin since CSA data are not available at Woreda level and used and

reliable data for consecutive years are not found at Woreda level.

Figure 12: Livestock population trend

Sources: CSA (2000-2005 E C)

As indicated in the figure clearly, cattle population is increased at all levels and with similar increasing

rate. Sheep and goats at the national and regional level are almost remained constant. Data collected from

key informants indicated that, population is increased (by 56% of the respondents), decreased (by 38% of

the respondents) and remain constant (by 5% of the respondents). Then since more of the respondents

assured the increment of the livestock population and the CSA data also assured the same result, the

triangulation data assured the overall increment of cattle population are agreed in line with the overall

informants’ assessment results.

0

10000000

20000000

30000000

40000000

50000000

60000000

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

TDC

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

TDC

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

TDC

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

TDC

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a

TDC

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

L

i

v

e

s

t

o

c

k

P

o

p

u

l

a

t

i

o

n

Area and time

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Key



4.1.4 Livestock Body Bondition

A total of 16,668 animals of which 63% cattle, 31% sheep and 6% of goats have been observed during the

field survey at 356 observation sites. The observation period was from end of December to end of March.

The result of the survey is summarised in the table below.

Table 9: LS body condition assessment result

S No LS Type Body condition categories

Proportion Tin Medium Fat Total

1 Cattle

No of Animals observed 4860 5017 663 10540 63

No of sites 123 123 123

Average per site 40 41 5

% of Conditions 46 48 6

2 Sheep


No of sites 115 115 115

Average per site 20 25 0

% of Conditions 45 55 0

2 Goats


No of sites 118 118 118

Average per site 1 7 0 16668

Sources: Field observation, (2013)

As indicated clearly in the figure, the largest numbers of animals are found under the medium body

condition (53%) categories followed by tin (44%) and finally too small number is fat (6%). If the

assessment were done after March, the result would have been the reveres. i.e. the largest proportion

would have been lay on tin body condition category.

Figure 13: Fattened, medium and tin body condition of cattle

Sources: Field observation (2013)

This is justified due to the fact that the livestock feed sources from natural grazing land and stubble

grazing is came to an end and livestock are depended on crop residues which are not treated and then poor

in quality.



Figure 14: LS body condition assessment result

Sources: Field observation (2013)

The distribution of the livestock body condition at spatial point is concerned, it is proportional to the

altitude and then to temperature. At lower altitude and high temperature most of the cattle and sheep are

tin and become under medium and fat when the altitude is increased. The best fatten cattle however are

found at the urban and pre-urban areas where cattle are properly managed and fed.

4.1.5 Economic and Social Values of Livestock Resources

As of the national livestock development master plan first draft paper (2007) which dealt on the socio-

economic values of livestock; type of animals, main produces and their uses are well elaborated based on

the production systems and the areas where they are produced.

Accordingly, data at the level of preliminary and detail studies are collected from 4002 HHs to indicate the

economic and social values of the livestock resources in the study areas.

From the collected data and field observation, it is identified that the economic and social values of

livestock in the livestock-crop agricultural production system is indispensable parts of the community

economic and social aspects. As of the economic values livestock especially cattle are the only power

sources to till the land and produce all crops both in the rain fed and irrigation production system in the

study areas. Old oxen and cows, shoats, poultry, bee-colony and their produces like meat, milk, honey,

skin, hide, egg as well as equines are the main financial sources to fulfil all agricultural inputs and

household monetary demands like payment for health, school and taxes, to buy clothes, household utilities

and home consumptions like spices, salt, sugar, milk, meat, egg and honey etc. Livestock also use as an

asset and banking services to have sustainable economic development and avoid the unexpected risk. The

social values of the livestock in the sub-basin are not separated from economic values since people have

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Animal types

Tin

Medium

Fat

Key



got huge quantity of livestock and livestock produces will have better crop production and then they are

counted as wealthy. As a result they are respected and have special social values in the community.

Furthermore, parts of the communities those have got better livestock have better chance to support the

others, to present better gift and use better for ritual ceremonies and then have got high social values.

Sometimes livestock numbers are used as a means for wealth ranking criteria like those have huge

numbers of oxen and cows are rich and those have medium numbers of oxen and cows are medium and

those have not have oxen and few cow are poor.

Table 10 Summary of economic and social values indicators for livestock resources

Sources, Field observation, discussions with key informants (2013)

In most cases of calculating, the gross income of farm the only values included are the cost of grain and

livestock products (meat, milk, honey..) but not included other produces and services gained from the

livestock sector. However from the land use planning points of view it is believed that all values should be

estimated and included to show the actual contribution of the livestock sector especially in the this study

areas so as to have a well outlook of respective bodies for the sector contribution and then to give a due

attention for the sector development.

A review to improve estimation of livestock contribution to the national GDP was conducted by Ministry

of Finance and Economic Development and Ministry of Agriculture in2011. The paper gave due attention

to include most of the livestock production and services gained from the sector. Based on the

methodologies applied in this paper the overall values of livestock in the sub-basin are conducted.

Consequently, total cattle, sheep and goats population is taken from the secondary data collected during

the field survey and other coefficients and standards are taken from FAO data base sited by MoFED and

MoA (2011) to calculate the estimated gross value of sales of live animals. As a result, Birr 782,105,154 is

contributed per year in the sub-basin. The paper however not include the value of hide and skin with the

S,N

o

Livestock

Types

Objectives of

production Main Produces Utilizations

Remark

1 Cattle Production,

fattening, dairy

Power, calves, milk and

milk by-products, meat,

manure, hide, income

Crop cultivation, home consumption,

income generating, gift, respect ion

Oth

er s

oci

al a

nd e

conom

ic u

ses

like

gif

ting,

reli

gio

us

cere

mony, et

c ar

e

eter

nal

uti

liza

tions

2 Sheep Production,

fattening

Lambs, meat, skin, manure,

income

Crop cultivation, home

consumption, gift, income generating

3 Goats Production,

fattening

Kids, meat, skin manure,

income

Crop cultivation, home

consumption, income generating, gift

4 Horses Production Power, income, manure Transport, income, ridding, wealth

ranking

5 Donkeys Production Power, income, manure Drafting, income generation

6 Mules Production Power, income , manure Transport, income

7 Poultry production Meat, egg, income Home consumption, income

8 Apiculture Production Honey, wax, income Home consumption, income



reason that the international industry classification assigned the hide and skin under the manufacturing

division. But the objective of this study is not to calculate the contribution of livestock sector for the

regional GDP by economic classes, however to indicate the role of livestock sector by estimating all

values, so, total number of 478,017 hide and 168,358skin, with a total number of 646,375 hide and skin

gave the gross estimated values of Birr 25737705. (from hide birr 15,272,230, sheep skin birr

10101474.6) .

With similar methodology and sources of data the overall milk production of the sub-basin is estimated

and Birr 728,932,236 is obtained. Correspondingly, the values of poultry meat and egg production, Honey

and wax production, oxen traction power, equine services and dung from cattle in the sub-basin are

estimated and a total of Birr 3,013,853,749 as indicated in the Table 11 below. This 3 billion Birr gross

value of livestock products and services indicated that the sub-basin has got huge potential for further

livestock production development and then the land use planning process shall give a due consideration for

the sector .The details of estimation for each value are attached with the annex part.

Table 11: Summary of Gross estimated values of livestock in the sub-basin

S.No Sources, (Categories) Values in Birr

1 Live Animals(Sell) 782780088

2 Milk Production 728932236

3 Poultry and egg production 81910596

4 Honey production 53123178

5 Oxen traction power 921955200

6 Equines services 284011790

7 Dung Production 13644189

8 Hide and skin 25373704.6

Total 3,013,853,749

Sources: WoARD, 2013, MoFED and MoA, 2011

The overall value is still under estimated since the values of threshing power, the values of compacting

Teff and Millet farm just after sowed and the values of manure gained from all livestock did not include.

4.1.6 Existing Livestock Production System

From the systematic review of world livestock production systems (FAO, 2002), it is categorized into 4

major classes as grassland based systems, rain fed mixed farming systems, irrigated mixed farming

systems and landless livestock production systems; while the Ethiopian livestock production systems is

broadly classified as extensive production, intensive production and agro-pastoral production systems

(Woody Biomass Inventory, 2002.).

Similarly, agricultural production system of the sub-basin is crop-livestock integrated production system.

This implies that livestock production in the study area is unavoidable practices, extensive production type

and at subsistence level. Although the largest share of the livestock production system is extensive type,



from secondary data and field observation findings it is possible to classify the whole livestock production

systems in the study area as extensive, semi-intensive and intensive types based on objectives of

production, management level, breed type, scale of production etc.

4.1.6.1 Existing Cattle Production Systems

The most dominant cattle type found in the sub-basin are local zebu, Fogera, hybrids of Fogera and zube

and improved types (Holstein- Frisians and their crossed with the local ones). The lion share of the breed

types are local type cattle (2405113) and mainly produced for the sustainable supply of draught power

(oxen) at the rural parts of the sub-basin. Moreover they are produced for supply of milk, meat, hide, cash

and manure for fertilizer and dung for fuel. This type of production system is then classified as extensive

type of livestock production dominantly characterized by low input-output level of production. Animals

are fed on natural grazing communally and depend mainly on crop residues and hay to some extent for

ploughing oxen and milking cows, they have got water from natural sources i.e. rivers, lake, spring,

sheltered at and around main home, they are breed at communal grazing and free grazing system with no

any control breeding and they have got health services at government and/or private sectors at nearby to

the dwelling areas.

The following figure illustrated , how cattle have been searching feed on the ploughed farm land (at the

left at Dera Woreda) and at wet land immersed in the water (at the right Zegie yiganda wetland) and

expect that how it can be too low and subsistence the result gained from.

Figure 15: Extensive grazing system of cattle in the study area.

Source: ADSWE, 2013

Production and productivity of local cattle in comparison with the improved ones are low. The regional

cattle productivity parameters indicated that age at first calving (in month), calving intervals (in month),

lactation periods (in days) and milk in litter per day /cow are 50.2, 21.3, 219, and 1.1 respectively are too

low. Furthermore, data indicated that average body weight, off-take rate, carcass weight, average life



expectancy and average productive life of cattle are 250-285kg, 7-8%, 125kg, 13years, 8 years for oxen

and 11-13 years for cows respectively (SCI, et, al, 2006). However, by supplying intermediate level of

feed and management, these low levels of production especially meat and milk are supposed to be

increased.

Data collected from HH survey confirmed that age at first calving (58 months) and calving interval (24

months) are higher than with the previous study (SCI, 2006) but lactation period(310 days) is similar

with the result of the same study and average milk production per cow per day is estimated to be 2.4lit.

Figure 16: Age at first service, calving intervals and lactation period of cattle

Sources, HH survey result (2014)

As of the information collected from the key informants however, indicated that pure local breeds at

Mecha Woreda Wetet Abay Kebele and North Achefer Woreda Kurbah Kebele local cows give 10-15

litter of milk per day at best management and there are also best local breeds which grow and fattened with

in a very short period of time ( Mecha- Merawi). These data shall then use for further investigation and the

idea shall be best researchable issues

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Age of 2 Years

Age of 3 Years

Age of 4 Years

Age at first service in years for owned cattle

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Above 4 Years

Calving intervals of cattle in years

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

7 Months 8 Months 9 Months 10 Months Above 10 Months

Lactation period in momnth by HH Percent



Figure 17: Local breeds give milk 15 litres per day at the left and 10 litre per day at the right

Sources: Key informants during field survey, 2013 at Wetet Abay and Kurbah Kebeles.

In pre-urban areas, farmers are selected, trained and have got some financial support (credit) through dairy

and fattening packages program at small scale of production. So they produce cattle for marketable

purposes i.e. for milk and fattened animals (meat). Production and management level here are semi-

grazing and semi-feedlot feeding, breeds are hybrid type and use AI (for dairy), they have been given

better shelter, supplements (feed), health care and this is classified as semi-intensive cattle production

system. This system of production is common at areas nearby to all Zonal and Woreda centres.

In the some Woredas and Zonal centres like Bahir dar, Merawi, Chilga, Gondar Zuria Dur Betie, Dangila

Gondar,etc, some investors have taken licence and conducted modern fattening practice at large and dairy

production to somehow. They do have sufficient places, infrastructure, market oriented objective of

production, assisted by professionals, use better local and hybrid cattle, they use totally feed lot feeding

system and use huge number of livestock at once, etc. Then, they are classified as intensive livestock

production system. As a result, productivities of the semi-intensive and intensive production systems

which are conducted by hybrid and better local cattle with better management system is by far better than

the extensive production system.

Figure 18: Small Scale intensive Dairy and Fattening Farms at Dangila (left) and Merawi (middle) Towns and

fattening at Alemtsehay kebele (chilega woreda) (at right).

Source: ADSWE, 2013

Inputs demanded here by the producers are industrial by products, hay, health care and technical

assistances. Moreover, they need to have areas for hay production and sufficient infrastructure and

technical support from the government (Quarantine services).



4.1.6.2 Existing Sheep Production Types and System

Local such as Washera, Farta and intermediate types of sheep are produced extensively first and foremost

for provision of lambs for mutton and skin for sell and home consumption. Even though, the Washera

which is the best local breed is originated at this sub-basin (Gilgel Abay) and produced, the regional sheep

production and productivities of sheep however are found to be at lower level of input output. This is

manifested by sheep are produced with traditional system by no means of feed supply, sufficient

health care, control breeding, sufficient and pure shelter, etc. Rather, they feed on communal

grazing, provided with non sufficient and unclean shelter and have got water from natural water

sources which are impure and drink communally at a point which is vulnerable for disease

transmission, land degradation and crate conducive situations for uncontrolled breeding.

As in the figure bellow shown that sheep are searching feed at communal grazing land but have no

any type of grasses or herbs and imagine how it looks like the production and productivity of this

traditional sheep production system in the sub-basin is at low level.

Figure 19: sheep are searching feed in North Achefer woreda (at left) and Chilega woreda (at right). Source: ADSWE, 2013

Age at first lambing, lambing intervals, off-take rate, average body weight, carcass weight, and mortality

rate of the Amhara Regional state of sheep are 14.2 months, 9 months, 30%, 30kg, 10kg, and 20%

respectively (SCI,2006) which show that how the production and productivities of sheep in the sub-basin

are too low.

From key informants discussions result, it is understood that the Washera sheep have got better

reproductive parameters from the regional average. Based on the information collected, the sheep age at

first served is 5 months, have 8 months lambing interval, matured at 5 months, give delivery 10 times in

life and 20% of them give twins. Moreover, the sub-basin average reproductive parameters such as age at



first lambing and lambing intervals are assured as 1 year and half a year by 62% and 66% respondents

which is better and less than the regional average (SCI, 2006).

Figure 20: Lambing intervals for owned sheep by HH

Source: HH survey result (2014)

Another and peculiar sheep management practiced in the sub-basin at Sekela, Banja , Fageta Lekoma and

parts of Dangila Woredas is sheep docking done due to large size of tail and then for the purposes of

ease mating. Experienced farmers, dock the tail at the average age of 4 months, at the time of early in the

night, by letting three fingers distance using sharp Knife and then put on fresh ash as immediately as

cutting the tail.

Figure 21: Docked Washera Sheep at Sekela town

Sources, ADSWE, 2014

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Half Year 1 Year 1.5 Year Above 1.5 Year



Figure 22: Washera sheep breed at Dangle and Adios Kidam Markets (at left and middle) and Farta sheep (at

right).


Whereas, in urban and pre- urban areas, individuals and fatteners cooperatives who are selected for sheep

and goats improvement packages are trained and fatten sheep with intermediate level of management and

inputs supply. They fatten sheep with better local breed types, provided with better shelter, health care,

feed supplements and feed lot feeding system. Accordingly this level of production and management level

is taken as semi-intensive sheep production system in the sub-basin since it is too small in size, not fully

feed lot system, no inclusive feed, shelter, transport, health care, training support, etc, are provided.

Demand for sheep by the community is too high and yet unsatisfied which implies intermediate and high

level of sheep production is in need for the future.

4.1.6.3 Existing Goats Production Systems

Central and Western highlands goats’ types are produced in the sub-basin, with the main objective of kids

(for meat) and skin production for home consumption and sell with no any inputs supply.

Although, farmers traditionally fatten male goats especially for the holyday of Easter through long time

lasting practices with no sufficient feed supplement and other cares, the production system in general here

is traditional or subsistence production type. This is due to low extension service support, poor marketing

system, low awareness of the producers, low provision of health services, etc. As a result goats in the sub-

basin are produced under poor feed supply, health care, poor shelter, communal and mixed browsing and

uncontrolled breeding with local breeds only.

The level of goats’ productivity in the sub-basin is considered as low as that of the regional average goats’

productivity. The Amhara Regional State, productivity and reproductive parameter of goats are indicated

as 36% off take rate, 30kg live weight, 10gk carcass weight, 13.8 months age at first kidding and 8 months

kidding interval (SCI, 2006) which is too low as compared with improved breed like buck of the South

Africa goats which have a mature body weight of 90-100Kg (Wikimedia, 2014).



Similarly data collected from HH survey implied that, age at first kidding and kidding intervals are at 1

year and half a year by 59% and 66% of the respondents respectively which is better and less than the

regional average.

Figure 23: Age at First kidding in years for owned goats by HH

Sources, HH survey result (2014)

The demand for goats especially at the Ethiopian festivals is very high; then this traditional goat’s

production shall be changed to the intermediate level of production in the coming time. Castration for

cattle, sheep goats and equines is practiced at all parts of the sub-basin in most case traditionally but in and

around the urban areas where facilities are available modern castration using burdizzo is common

practices. In addition for equine they used open castration.

Figure 24 : Browsing system at North Achefer Woreda


4.1.6.4 Existing Poultry Production Types and System

Poultry in the sub-basin are produced in extensive (with free roaming, with no feed supplements,

medicament and shelter cares) production system with uncharacterised Tilili (Awi) , Melo Hamusit (South

58.7 27.7

10.3

3.2

1 Year

1.5 Year

2 Years

Above 2 Years



Gondar), Alefa ( North Gondar) and other local best breeds for meat and egg either for home consumption

or sell. As a result this extensive type of poultry production conducted by 1,869,172 (95%) local breeds is

too low in output even though they have their own good merits to develop them farther.

In Amhara Regional State, productivity and reproductive parameters of poultry are indicated as 98% off

take, 1.5 kg live weight in six months, 1.3 kg carcass weight, 107, 65 and 60 eggs per layer per year for

exotic, package and local chicken respectively (RHSES, 2003).

Figure 25: Sostu Dana local Poultry breeds at the Kebele centre,

Source: ADSWE, 2014

The production system of poultry in the sub-basin especially at the urban and semi-urban areas however is

also conducted in semi-intensive type which is practiced with farmers who are selected and trained for

poultry development package and have got improved breeds and use feed supplements, better shelter,

health care, etc, and intensive types which is conducted by the individuals and organized youths produced

poultry for the purposes of marketing with improved types, better standards and infrastructures and with

the professional assistances, etc. The quantity of improved poultry owned by the semi-intensive and

intensive type of production is 88,711(5%) of the total poultry produced in the study areas.



Figure 26: Intensive Medium Scale Poultry Production at Merawi

Source: ADSWE, 2014

The main problem here is lack of improved breeds, dilution of local best breeds with unknown foreign

breeds introduced by individual producers, formulated feed, medicaments for vaccine and treatments.

4.1.6.5 Existing Apiculture Production System

The known bee species namely Apis melifera adansoni and Apis melifera monicola are reared in the

sub-basin to produce primarily honey and as a by product wax for sell and house consumption.

Apiculture in the sub-basin is produced in extensive and semi-intensive types of production systems. Data

collected from secondary sources, revealed that there are a total of 253,846 bee colonies in the sub-basin.

Of which 91% are traditional and 9% are modern and transitional. As a result most of the apiculture

practices on the sub-basin are extensive production type and some which are produced with modern bee

hives and use some modern technologies for honey and wax processing are considered as semi-intensive

production type.



Figure 27: Modern Apiculture at Ahuri Kebele North Achefer woreda (at right) and Koley-Dengose kebele in

Farta woreda (at left) by organized youths at closure area.

Inputs demanded by the producers for modern apiculture are modern beehive, honey extractors, wax

moulding, etc. as some of the producers are started to have and utilise them. Demand for honey, wax and

bee colonies and bee for cross pollination is very much in need by the community and consumers. Honey

productivity of traditional, transitional and modern bee hives at the regional level are 6, 15 and 20 kg

respectively (SCI, 2006).

Major constraints affecting the sub-basin honey production is improper chemical utilisation for crop

production i.e. type, amount, space and time of chemical application for insecticides and herbicides are not

well designed, implemented, regulated and evaluated. Moreover, drought, disease, and birds are also

mentioned as secondary problems affecting the sub-sector development.

4.1.6.6 Existing Equine Production Type and System

Horses, mules and donkeys are produced in the sub-basin for the main objectives of power supply or

transportation of goods and services from and to agricultural villages and markets and as a means of

income. Moreover they used for ploughing purposes especially horses and mules at Awi and South Gondar

Zones in the sub-basin. They are produced with no supply of any additional feed, shelter, medicaments. At

South Gondar Zone Farta and Estie Woredas however, they started up to bring improved Male donkeys

called Jake’s or locally named “Sinar Aheyya” or the father of mule from Sudan to give service for mares

(female horses) to give birth mules.

Then the productivity of the equines in general is at traditional production system and so it is at low output

level.



Figure 28: Jake’s at Farta woreda served for society under woreda office of Agriculture

Source: 2014 field work.

4.1.7 Existing Livestock Market and Marketing System

The regional and the sub-basin market and marketing system of the livestock are traditional and

constrained with many problems like routs, transport, shelter, water, feed, health services, etc. It is

possible also to say that all market has not used weight and quality based price, no quality grading and

standard systems. Markets are found at Kebele development centres, Woreda, Zone and Regional centres.

According to Alkali teal, 2009, the sub-basin market classification can be looked into as primary,

secondary and terminal. Accordingly, the primary markets are found at Kebele development centres where

livestock are merchandized at local level between the producers themselves and the producers and traders

in small quantities in the sub-basin. Secondary markets are big in size, merchandized huge and all types of

livestock and final destination for the primary markets traders and found at all Woreda centres and some of

the Zonal centres which are not as big as Gondar and Bahir dar zonal livestock markets. The terminal

markets are too big in size, available all livestock types and found within the sub-basin such as Bahir Dar

and Gondar markets and outside the sub-basin like Addis Ababa and Ethio-Sudan border livestock

markets. This indicated that main markets are far from the producers dwelling areas and then producers

are not benefited.

During the field survey, 259 market places are identified, of which (14 only for livestock and 60 for

livestock and others) are used. At these 74 market places, markets are held at different days per week

dominantly on Saturday, Monday and Wednesday and a total of 101 market days are held per week so,

5050 (101X50) market days are held per year in the sub-basin.



Figure: 29: Livestock markets distribution

Source: 2014 field work.

Some detail data also are collected at 7 markets in the sub-basin held on Sunday, Saturday and

Wednesday. The result is summarised at the table below.

Table 12: Average Estimation of LS volume and Prices in Birr

Average Volume

in Number per

market

Descriptions Cattle Sheep Goats Remark

Max 2000 6000 1200 At New year, X-Mass, and

Easter

Min 300 500 300 During non holy days

Average Prices in

Birr per animal

Max 15000 2800 2500 At New year, X-Mass, and

Easter

Min 1000 300 250 During non holy days

Sources, Market Survey (2014)

All livestock types from producers are supplied to the markets and the reasons for selling are to replaces

the stock, to cover agricultural inputs expenditure, to pay land and other taxes, to cover the house hold

utilities such as closes, school fee, health services. Market prices of the livestock are not determined by the

live weight or grade and quality of the livestock but by the season, number of animals supplied to the

market, inspection, by bargaining process and then farmers are not benefited with this process.



As information gathered and confirmed during field work, the highest livestock population with the best

body condition and prices are supplied to the market three times per year i.e.at Ethiopian new year

including Meskel, X-Mass and Easter.

Figure 30: Tilili poultry at Addis Kidam Market a week before Easter, 2014

Sources, Photo, ADSWE, 2014

At all levels of markets within the sub-basin all types of livestock at all age are merchandized and then,

the selling and buying processes are held by producers, traders, consumers, fatteners and butchers.

The dominant Marketing days, Peak time at when large number of livestock is supplied to market, sources

of livestock, directions to where livestock are taken, type of sellers and buyers are summarized in the table

below.

Table 13: Summary of Livestock Marketing Data

Dominant

Marketing

Days

Seasons at

which Highest

No of LS are

supplied

Sources from Ls

are supplied

Directions to where LS are

taken

Sellers Buyers

Saturday,

Wednesday,

Monday

Easter,

Christmases,

New Year +

Meskel

Surrounding

Kebeles, Small

markets, Woreda

centers

All surrounding Kebeles ,

Woreda and Zone centers ,

Bahir-dar, Metema and Addis

Ababa

Farmers,

Merchants,

Fatteners

Farmers,

Consumers,

Merchants,

Fatteners

Sources, Market survey result (2014) at 7 markets.

Most of the marketable livestock are transported on foot to and from the market; however, poultry, shoats

and cattle are started to transport by vehicles to secondary and terminal home and abroad markets but not

with proper trucks and respect to animals welfare. The following figures show how a merciless and

suffering sheep transportation system is going on in the sub-basin.

Then availability of livestock markets are considered as one of the factors affecting livestock production

types (LUTs).



Figure 31: Sheep bought at Dangila Market transported to Finot-Selam

Sources, Photo ADSWE, 2014 at Enjibara

4.1.8 Heard Structure and Estimated Feed and water Requirements

4.1.8.1 Heard Structure

Herd structures have been defined in terms of number of heads of animal as well as in terms of reference

Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) defined as a mature animal weighing 250 kg (FAO, 1976).

Table 14: Heard structure of cattle in the sub-basin

Zone Total

Male Female

<6Month

6Mo<1year 1Y-<3Year 3-<10Y

10Year &above

<6Month 6Mo<1year

1Y-<3Year 3-<10Y 10Year &above

N/Gondar 900406 40979 33223 68798 258793 19822 46057 35627 80817 300709 18086

S/ Gondar 775760 32017 21605 57235 261046 32323 29927 22925 60739 241940 16003

W/Gojjam 613880 19815 17449 41360 218147 25247 20771 19692 44317 192429 14653

Awe 115067 4927 3491 8995 32611 1795 5039 3543 10057 42290 2317

Total 2405113 97737 75768 176387 770597 79187 101795 81787 195931 777369 51059

% 100 4 3 7 32 3 4 3 8 32 2

Sources, CSA,2000,2001,,2003,2004, 2005 and WoARD (2013)



Table 15: Heard structure of the Sheep and Goats in the sub-basin

S.No Zone Total sheep

Sheep

Male Female

<6Months 6Months&<1year

1Year&<2Years

2Years & above

<6Months 6Months<1year 1Year&<2Years

2Years & above

1 North Gondar 282922 37713 8460 7996 12810 41705 14804 17517 141918

2 South Gondar 288885 42703 10294 6087 9741 43423 13487 14956 148194

3 West Gojjam 298114 44717 11925 8943 8943 41736 11925 17887 149057

3 Awe 82061 12861 2965 1760 1880 12434 3829 3988 42343

Total 951982 137994 33644 24786 33375 139297 44045 54348 481513

% 100 14 4 3 4 15 5 6 51

Goats

1 North

Gondar 191003 25646 9348 7149 8869 26689 12521 12575 69577

2 South

Gondar 217005 28706 10651 9750 19029 30044 11377 13536 93912

3 West Gojjam 117656 18789 6351 4674 7273 19988 6757 6144 47740

4 Awe 24114 4076 1375 1027 1847 4287 1185 1168 9148

Total 549778 77217 27726 22601 37019 81007 31841 33424 220377

% 100 14 5 4 7 15 6 6 40

Sources, CSA,2000,2001,,2003,2004, 2005 and WoARD (2013)

The highest percentage of cattle (32%) are encompassed at 3-10 years of age for cattle, at 2 years and

above (51%) for sheep and at 2 and above years (40%) years for goats. It implies that most of the livestock

composition is laid within reproduction age. The TLU conversion factors and quantities of TLU for all

livestock mentioned are given at Table 1.

4.1.8.2 Feed Requirements

In order to support the body's processes and promote production, animals must consume regular supplies

of various nutrients based on their age, sex and objective of production.

According to FAO (1976), study conducted at Kenya, yearly feed requirement of cattle, goat and sheep per

cow, doe and ewe unit is summarised at the following table at different level of management for the

purpose of comparison.

Table 16: Yearly feed requirement of livestock for maintenances and production per year

S.No Livestock type Quantity of feed requirement(Kg/year) per level of technology Remark

Low level Medium level High level

1 Cattle 3740 5200 7200 For dairy and meat

2 Sheep 360 610 750 For meat and wool

3 Goats 470 700 960 For meat and dairy

Source, FAO,



In our cases, however, the total feed requirement of the livestock found in the region is estimated based on

the maintenances requirement of one TLU (2.28 tone/TLU/year) and production requirement of one TLU

(2.74 tone/TLU/year) to indicate the existing livestock feed condition based on demand and supply

methods. As a result; a total of 4,558,607.19 and 5,502,459.78 tone of DM feed are required for the total

livestock available in the sub-basin respectively.

4.1.8.3 Water Requirements

Data from institutional survey showed that 4,819 water points were available in the sub-basin. The

water sources are eight in type i.e. lake, river, pond, spring, developed spring, hand dug well, deep

well, and pipe.

According to the survey result, 886 (18%) are used for livestock drinking. From 886 water points only

600are functional but the rest or 286 are not functional. Of these (886) water points 211(23%) have

livestock drinking trough and 94 are used for livestock only and the rest for both human and livestock.

All these figures indicated that how the water development for livestock is the neglected but too

important issues.

Table 17 Major Source of Water for own Animals by HH

Although the institutional survey result showed the largest number of water source is non developed

spring(205) followed by deep well (194) and developed spring(186), more than 60% of the HH are used

rivers(107) as main water sources for their livestock. From similar sources, the major constraints with

regard to livestock water are water born diseases (40%), water scarcity (32%) and inaccessibility (27%).

Water sources for livestock Frequency Percent

River 2397 61.6

Lake 201 5.2

Water Pipe 118 3.0

Non developed Spring 749 19.2

Water Wells 336 8.6

Pond 27 .7

Water Dam 6 .2

Developed Spring 60 1.5

Total 3894 100.0



Figure 32: Major Water Sources Distribution for Livestock

Sources: Institutional Data collected at site, 1013

Different livestock have different amount of water requirements and watering time intervals based on

temperature under which they live, type of feed they take, and class of livestock.

Based on the given standards and number of livestock available in the sub-basin, amount of water

required is estimated to be 26,473,477m3 ; so any water based development projects proposed and

formulated in the sub-basin should consider this amount of water is essential for livestock

consumption.



Table 18: Estimated water requirement for livestock (M3/year)

Source: FAO, 1984. And the calculated for the sub-basin livestock

4.1.8.4 Health Services

According to the institutional survey result, 201 health services (81 health posts and 120 vet clinics) are

recorded. At these health services, 237 professionals (184 at diploma, 26 at degree, 15 at DVM and 12 at

certificate level of qualification) have been giving services. These indicated that the proportion of

livestock to health services and total professionals are 12,980 TLU and 11,008TLU respectively which are

too difficult to deliver appropriate services.

The distribution of health services and professionals as per ACZ is directly proportional to the area

coverage of ACZ proportion. As a result, the largest share is found at moist tepid part of the ACZ as

clearly as observed at the map bellow.

S.

No Water Intake (L)

Water requirement per litter or cubic metre by livestock type

Cattle Sheep Goat Horse donkey Mule 1000 Poultry

G/Total

1 Daily Water intake(l) 20-30 2-4 2-4 11-25 10-12 10-15 345-470

2 Watering interval(days)

2.1 Normal in dry season 2-3 3-5 3-5 2 3 3

2.2 Maximum 7 7 7 7-10

3 Average daily Water

requirements/Lit/day for planning

25 5 5 18 12 15 407

4 Average Annual Water

requirements/cubic meter/year for

one Livestock type

9.125 1.83 1.825 6.570 4.380 5.475 148.555

5 Average Annual Water

requirements/cubic meter/year for all

Livestock types found in the sub-

basin

2194665

6

174212

7

1003345 20430

1

113182

3

15925

7

285968 26473477 M3

Percent 82.90 6.58 3.79 0.77 4.28 0.60 1.08



Figure 33: Distribution of health services at ACZ

Sources: Institutional Data collected, ACZ map and WoARD, 2014

4.2 Feed Resources

4.2.1 Land Use and Land Covers of the Sub-basin

Land use and cover maps are useful tools for feed assessment studies as a base data. Satellite data is

suitable for such purpose, because of its fast repeatability, wide and unique view and availability of data

from most part of electromagnetic spectrum. The satellite image of the area was interpreted to determine

the area of different feed resource cover types. According to image interpretation of the coverage of feed

resources found to be from the entire growth sub-basin in the respective year. This show that, the feed

resource is declining at alarming rate; therefore, proper land use planning is timely needed for sustainable

feed resource land management in the study area. The area coverage and spatial distribution of land

use/cover in the sub-basin is indicated Table 19 and Figure 34 below. As in the field work observation

checked the area coverage of cultivated is very huge, similarly the result of GIS processed its value more

than other cover parts in proportion 825,176.23 (52.26%). Next to cultivated land 310,423.42 (19.66%)

hectare area covered by water body including Lake Tana. The third large coverage is grass land with

137,952.74 (8.74%) hectare. Plantation forest (almost all eucalyptus trees) covers 60,350.65 (3.82%) of



the whole sub-basin. Now a days in the sub-basin practiced gazing land alarmingly changed to cultivated

and plantation forest, so it asks solution from all concerned body.

Table 19: Area of land us/cover for resources of feed production the sub-basin

No Sub-units Area (ha) % Major covers Area (ha) %

1 Town 4,181.21 0.26%

Built-up area 87,829.29 5.56% 2 Farm village 83,648.08 5.30%

3 Intensively cultivated land 527,836.62 33.43%

Cultivated land 825,176.23 52.26%

4 Moderately cultivated land 241,910.52 15.32%

5 Sparsely cultivated land 55,429.09 3.51%

6 Dense natural forest 17,828.38 1.13%

Forest 78,179.02 4.95% 7 Plantation forest 60,350.65 3.82%

8 Dense shrub land 30,223.05 1.91%

Bush and shrub land 102,071.16 6.46%

9 Open shrub land 68,179.35 4.32%

10 Degraded wooded shrub

land 3,668.75 0.23%

11 Open grass land 104,473.70 6.62%

Grass land 137,952.74 8.74% 12 Shrub grass land 33,479.04 2.12%

13 Seasonal wetland 6,895.61 0.44%

Wetland 25,203.33 1.60% 14 Permanent wetland 18,307.72 1.16%

15 Lake 305,650.00 19.36%

Water body 310,423.42 19.66%

16 Rivers 2,737.30 0.17%

17 Ponds and Dams 2,036.12 0.13%

18 Sub-afro-alpine vegetation

12,261.75 0.78%

Afro alpine and sub-

afro-alpine

vegetation 12,261.75 0.78%

Total 1,579,096.94 100.00% 1,579,096.94 100.00%

Source: GIS data processed



Figure 34: Major land use/cover in the sub-basin

4.2.2 Existing Feed Resource Assessment

The livestock population in ANRS is estimated at 13,766,923 cattle, 8,825,061sheep and 5,102,580 goats,

417,324 horses, 134,168 mules, 2,398,190 donkeys, 14,610,770 poultry and 1,032,927 (CSA, 2013). In

addition according to woreda office of agriculture data (2013), 2,405,113 cattle, 951,982 sheep, 549,778

goats, 31,096 horses, 29,088 mules, 258,407 donkeys, 1,924,685, 241,713 bee hives and only 27,326 cattle

have got exotic blood in the Lake Tana sub-basin which is only 1.14 %.



The economic contribution from the livestock sector, however, is below expectation, which is mainly

attributed to feed problems both in terms of quantity and quality. This poor nutrition of livestock is largely

reflected by the low milk productivity, weak power output of draft animals, stunted growth of animals and

causes severity death of animals. This subsequently resulted in poor nutrition of local people, low local

and export market income and also decline in crop production and over all subsistence way of living.

According to the final result, dry matter yield from the sub-basin as shown in Table 25 has natural

vegetation (grazing) 27.43%, crop residue 65.7% and aftermath 6.8%, similarly CSA (2005 to 2012), the

average eight years data value of feed sources 44.2% grazing land, 36.82% crop residues, 0.19% improved

forage, 14.24% hay, 0.52% by products and 3.93% from others. This data show that more than four-fifth

(81.02%) of the major livestock feed comes from grazing lands and crop residues in sub-basin. In the other

way the contribution of improved forage and by products are insignificant. In addition, the amount of

grazing and browsing is completely decreasing year to year in the sub-basin across the four zones Figure

35.



Figure 35: Trends of feed sources in the sub-basin

Source: CSA, 2005-2012

one method of feed resources information gathering is through biophysical assessment identification of

topographic features, like the elevation, slope classes, soil depth and erosion hazard, climatic

characteristics (rain fall and temperature), land use/cover (major and minor) type and forge (tree,

shrubs/bushes, grasses and forbs) species, density and composition at selected site level are the major

biophysical survey techniques that are used to generate the information for the selection of the proper feed

resource utilization types.

0

20

40

60

80

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

1998 1999 2000 2001

Green Fodder/Grazing

Crops Residues

Improved Feed

Hay

By-products

Others

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i

N/G

on

dar

S/G

on

dar

W/G

ojja

m

Aw

i 2003 2004 2005


Crops Residues

Improved Feed

Hay

By-products

Others

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

Nat

ion

al

Am

har

a R

eg

1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 2004 2005


Crops Residues

Improved Feed

Hay

By-products

Others



Land use/ land cover is used as a base for study feed resources classification resulted from GIS processing.

According the result, eight major cover types identified in the field namely grass land, bush and shrub

land, cultivated land, forest land, wet land aphro- alpine, built up area and water bodies. Totally three

hundred thirty three sites used for feed resources inventory (detail field observations survey) were selected

on criteria within sample plots size 50mx4m (200sqm) for each identified unit. At each site species are

identified; totally in the sub-basin 36 trees, shrubs and bushes, 21 grasses and 3 legumes species were

identified in Table 20.

The selected sample plots size 50mx4m (200sqm) also used for purpose of vegetation inventory (to

decided density, composition, species identification, etc). As a result, 108(32.43%) ;sites observation is

performed for grassland, 106 cultivated land, 57 bushes and shrubs, 43 forest land, 14 wet land and 5 on

built up area as shown in Annex part. Of the total 333 inventory sites; 8 (2.4%) sites are found in sub-

humid cool, 250 (75.08%) sites are found in moist tepid, 35 (10.51%) sites are found in sub-humid tepid,

37(11.11%) sites are found in moist cool and 3 (0.90%) sites are found in moist cool as in indicated in

Table 22. More than three-fourth part of the sub-basin dominated by moist tepid. In addition observation

occurs on cover basis, on grass land 32.43% sites, cultivated land 31.83% sites, bush and shrub 17.12%

sites, forest land 12.91% sites, built up area 1.50% sites and wet land 4.20% sites.

Table 20: Observation sites based on cover land cover and ACZ type

SHC=Sub-Humid Cool, MT=Moist Tepid, SHT=Sub-Humid Tepid

Source: ADSWE, 2014

4.2.2.1 Natural Pasture (grazing and browsing) Land

It includes the plain areas, road side grazing land, wet lands, deferred grazing lands and forest/bush land

which included products or feed for livestock, conservation, bee forge, fire wood, home for wildlife,

tourist attraction and. The types of feeds produced are fresh grazing grass, herbs and legumes for grazing

and browsing uses, hay production for preserved feed and stand hay for deferred grazing. Monthly changes

in natural pasture production and quality are closely related to rainfall. According to existing feed resource

assessment result (using land use/cover data), it is area coverage has 1,246,184.60 hectare (excluding

water body) with annual production of 1,643,705.56(27.43%) ton dry matter per year (Table 31).

No Major class Number

of major

class

% share

cover

based

Type and number of observation site at ACZ

SHC

MT

SHT

Moist

Cool

Moist

cold

Total

1 Grass land 108 32.43 4 75 17 11 1 108

2 Cultivated land 106 31.83 1 84 9 11 1 106

3 Bush and shrub 57 17.12 1 47 4 5 - 57

4 Forest land 43 12.91 1 28 3 10 1 43

5 Built up area 5 1.50 1 2 2 - - 5

6 Wet land 14 4.20 - 14 - - - 14

Total 333 100 8 250 35 37 3 333

% share - - 2.4 75.08 10.51 11.11 0.90 100



The productivity of this natural grazing land is low 1-4ton DM/ha/year (Alemayhu, 2003). According to

MoA, 1989, DM production of natural pasture land is estimated as 2 ton /ha/year from high potential

cereal/livestock zone of savannah grass land and 2.5 ton /ha/year from humid temperate pasture;

1.5ton/ha/year from low potential cereal/livestock zone of pasture savannah grass land and then 2 ton

/ha/year from high potential perennial/livestock zone pasture (savannah grass land).

In the sub-basin among the feed resources, the natural pasture consists of a wide range of grasses, other

herbaceous species mainly used during wet season, trees, shrubs and bushes used for main browses are

indicated in Table 21.

There is growing trend of hay making from natural pasture, especially from school compounds, church

yards and other public places. Hay is made during October to December and commonly cultivated after

very late as a result, the quality is poor. Part of the pasture could be protected and left for standing hay.

This standing hay is also used during the dry season in Mecha, Farta, Bahir dar zuria, Fogera, Gonder

zuria, South Achefer and Libokemkem woredas.



Table 21: Identified natural pasture land feed resource species in the sub-basin

Source: Field observation, 2014

Grass land

It is an economical importance feed sources for all livestock species and it occurs in most part of the sub-

basin in different size of land and various species. It is mainly recognized mixed with natural bush, shrub

and scrub, around settlement area, on mountain and hill tops and side tops and on plateaus having stony,

S/

no

Grasses Bushes/trees

Local name Scientific name Local name Scientific name

1 Akirima Eleusine Jaegeri Agam Carissa edulis

2 Fila Typha angustifolia Atat Maytenus arbutifolia

3 Gajja Andropogon gayanas Maytenus ovatus

4 Gicha Cyperus rotundus Dedeho Euclea schimperia

5 Muja Snowdenia polystachya Gimero Capparis micrantha

6 Mush - Girar Acacia spp.

7 Sembelet sar Cymbogon commulatus Girawa Vernomia amygdalina

8 Serdo Cynodon nemfuensis Imbuacho Rumex nervosus

9 Sindedo Pennisetum snowdenia Imbuway Solanum capylacanth

10 Wura Digitaria adscendens Kega Rosa abyssinica

11 papyrus Cyprus papyrus Keret Osyris

12 Rhodes Cloris gayana Kitikita Dodonaea viscosa

13 Tucha Pennisetum glabrum Lenkuwata Grewia ferriginea

14 Elephant grass Pennisetum purpureum Sensel Justica schimperiana

15 Murgn Sporobolus natalensis Tembelel Jasminum abyssinicum

16 Senbelet Hyparrhenia dregeana Woyira Olea africana

17 Yetef sar Eragrostis botryodes Dokema Sizygium seenseuin

18 Yewusha dagusa Eleusine indica Embacho Rumex nerosus

19 Yekok sar Arthraxon prionodes Gollo Ricinus communis

20 Shenkotet Festuca sinensis Kitketa Dodonaea anguistifolia

21 Yamora sar Panicum maximum Agaam Carissa edulis

22 Legumes Gumoro Capparistomentosa

23 Local name Scientific name Atat Maytensus undata

24 Yelam ater Vigna unguiculata Wanza Cordia Africana

25 Alfalfa Medicago sativa L. Sesa Albizia gummifera

26 Maget Trifolium subterraneum Shola Ficus surrus

27 Ergib ater Cajanus cajan

28 Sespania Sespania saspan

29 Embus kamo Rhus glutinosa Hochst

30 Ishe Mimuspos kummel

31 Lukinia Leucaena leucocephale

32 Ameja Hypericum quartinianum

33 Avalo Combretum molle

34 sendel Albizia schimperiana aliv.

35 Chibiha Ficus thonnigii

36 Shenkor ageda Saccharum officinarum

37 Ergib ater Cajanus cajan



sandy and shallow soils. Grass lands are characterized by the presence or absence of woody vegetation

such as trees, bushes and shrubs. Grass land covers totally 150,214.49(9.51%) hectare including afro-

alpine and according to GIS processed result, it is classified in to three sub-class; as of open grass land

cover 104,473.70 (6.62%) hectare, shrub grass land covers 33,479.04(2.12%) and Afro-alpine area covers

12,261.75(0.78%) hectare. Grass land covers the second highest feed resource area in the sub-basin next to

cultivated land on area basis. Identified grass land points and grass species during field observation are

indicated under Annex part and in Table 21 respectively. Its area coverage from GIS data presents in

Figure 34 and Table 19. Identified grass species in sub-basin; Eleusine Jaegeri, Andropogon gayana,

Typha angustifolia , Cyperus rotundus, Cloris gayana, Pennisetum purpureum, Cymbogon commulatus,

Cynodon nemfuensis, Pennisetum snowdenia, Cyprus papyrus, Snowdenia polystachya etc. The whole

sample sites collected during field observation in the sub-basin indicated in map spatially in Figure 36.



Figure 36: Observed grass land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin


In the sub-basin on 108 sites, major grass land covers were identified based on individual and the whole

species occurrence as shown Table 22. According to the result serdo, gajja and tucha occurs dominant

grass both in individual and whole species by frequency serdo (Cynodon nemfuensis) 155, gajja

(Andropogon gayanas) 117 and tucha (Pennisetum glabrum) 84. In addition both individual and whole



occurrence of species by percentage is 46.55 (24.84), 35.14 (18.75) and 25.23 (13.46) by percentage both

in frequency of individual and whole species occurrence respectively. Now a day’s most indigenous

grasses encroached by erosion, cultivation (changed to crop land), weeds, plantation, etc. especially now a

day’s plantation of eucalyptus trees serious problem and it asks policy how to use grass land for livestock

purpose.

Table 22: Identified dominant grass species in the sub-basin.

Source: ADSWE field observation, 2014

Figure 37: Graph shows dominant grass species

Source: ADSWE field observation, 2014.

Grass cover type Tucha Serdo Goder Gajja Gagirda/ketet Wajimma Hyppernia others

Frequency of individual species

occurrence from whole sites in the

sub-basin 84 155 20 117 41 40 22 145

% of individual species occurrence

by sites 25.23 46.55 6.01 35.14 12.31 12.01 6.61 43.54

% of individual species occurrence

over the whole species 13.46 24.84 3.21 18.75 6.57 6.41 3.53 23.24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Individual species occurrence

from 333 sites

% of individual species

occurrence


occurrence over the whole

species



Figure 38: Sample grass land at different sites of the sub-basin.

Bush/Shrub land

The vegetation of shrub/bush cover was recognized by woody plants that have multi-stem branches of

short vegetation species. Shrub land covers the third highest feed source area next to exposed surfaces.

Shrub land by itself covers 102,071.16(6.46%) hectare of total feed source area in the sub-basin. It is field

observation result points indicated in Annex part. The area cover present from GIS data result in Figure 34

and Table 19. The species identified in the field survey are Agam (Carissa edulis), Kega (Rosa

abyssinica), Gumero (Capparistomentosa), girar (Acacia spp.), Atat (Maytensus undata), Sespania saspan

(Sespania), Kitikita (Dodonaea viscose), Abalo (Combretum molle), Kushele, etc. Sample areas are

collected by photo camera in the field survey shown in Figure 39.



Figure 39: Observed bush and shrub land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin



Figure 40: Bushes and shrubs land found Libo kemkem woreda in wushatirs kebele at Nechimeda got.

In the sub-basin on 57 sites major bushes and shrubs land were identified based on individual and the

whole species occurrence as shown Table 23. According to the result atat (Maytensus undata), girar

(Acacia spp.) and agam (Carissa edulis) occurs dominant species both in individual and whole species by

frequency 103, 92 and 64 respectively. In addition both individual and whole occurrence of species by

percentage is 30.93 (19.07), 27.63 (17.04) and 19.22 (11.85) by percentage both in individual and whole

occurrence for atat, girar and agam respectively.

Table 23: Identified dominant bush and/or shrub species in the sub-basin

Forest land

It is one source of animal feed especially for goats. In the sub-basin the forest land classified in to three

groups; natural forest, plantation forest (eucalyptus tree) and riverine forest. Some of species found in this

cover type are large trees adopted in the area are woyera (Olea africana), sholla (Ficus surrus), embes

(Rhus glutinosa Hochst), girar (Acacia spp), Chibiha (Ficus thonnigii). Bushes and shrubs are kulqaule,

agam, kechem, feyele feg, kelabo, embacho, atat, kega, lebagiba, waginus, kotquato, keskes, nacha, awura.

Bush and shrub type Agam Kega Gumero girar Atat Atkuar Zigita Kotkoto Abalo Kushele Other

Frequency of individual

species occurrence from

whole sites in the sub-basin 64 13 55 92 103 4 44 43 18 24 80


occurrence by sites 19.22 3.90 16.52 27.63 30.93 1.20 13.21 28.67 5.41 7.21 24.02



species 11.85 2.41 10.19 17.04 19.07 0.74 8.15 7.96 3.33 4.44 14.81



As GIS data processed result major forest area covers 78,179.02(4.95%) hectare in the sub-basin. The

collected forest point’s sites are indicated in Annex part. The sample natural forest area observed during

field observation is shown in Figure 41. The representative of the sub-basin forest land cover map is in

Figure 34 and area is in Table 19. During field survey farmers explained at different sites it is used for hay

production and leaf (at drought) for cattle and browsing for goats.

In the sub-basin observation occurs on 43 sites, of these major forest land were identified based on

individual and the whole species occurrence as shown Table 24. According to the result Bahirzaf, girar

and warka/bamba/shola occur dominantly trees both in individual and whole species by frequency 144, 87

and 80 respectively. In addition both individual and whole occurrence of species by percentage is 43.24

(21.36), 26.13 (12.91) and 24.02 (11.87) by percentage both in individual and whole occurrence for

bahirzaf, girar and warka respectively. More than one-fifth of observed sites are eucalyptus trees; at the

different level (kebel and woreda) of group discussion assured that its dominant trees, as during

recconinusus and detail survey checked in the field it expands on grazing and cultivated land, in the future

it asks policy for eucalyptus plantation, especially in Wogera, L/Armachiho, Mecha, S/Achefer, Farta

woredas.

Table 24: Identified dominant forest species in the sub-basin

Forest cover type Wanza

Warka/

Bamba/

Shola Eshe

Bahir

zaf Sesa

Dok

ma

Chib

ha Asta

Decer

encia weyra Girar Others



whole sites in the sub-basin 67 80 12 144 47 19 49 5 18 42 87 104


occurrence by sites 20.12 24.02 3.60 43.24 14.11 5.71 14.71 1.50 5.41 12.61 26.13 31.23



species 9.94 11.87 1.78 21.36 6.97 2.82 7.27 0.74 2.67 6.23 12.91 15.43



Figure 41: Zafeyenguse dense forest at Embachikogunaguna kebele in Ebenat woreda.

Wet land

Wetlands in the sub-basin is important resources that supply essential raw materials such as reeds for the

farming community for thatching purposes and the head of papyrus which are very important for

ceremonial use. Wetlands are also the major source of drinking water for humans and livestock.

Furthermore, wetlands play a vital role in the economic lives of many peasants in the sub-basins. As Abye

Kindie (2001) indicated in Amhara region wet lands are used for fishing, growing crops, grazing and

transportation. Although in sub-basin fishing, growing crops, grazing and transportation are some of the

major activities undertaken, as checked during detail survey through field observations and group

discussions. According GIS processed data result it covers 25,203.33(1.60%) hectare of total of the sub-

basin.



Figure 42: Wet land at North Achefer woreda exposed for over grazing

Wetlands are the last destination for grazers during the dry months in the sub-basin. Through during the

time with an increasing in the livestock population, shortage of fodder and the expansion of agricultural

activities have increased grazing pressure on wetlands, as indicated in Figure 42 above. The pressure from

grazing has resulted in a change in the characteristics of wetlands, some of which have changed into rough

grazing land. The threats from grazing can arise from overstocking in the wetland, year-round grazing

which excludes ecological recovery and happening soil trampling. Whilst compaction of the wetlands by

livestock has a significant impact on the infiltration, capacity of the wetland soil and hence affects the

hydrological systems of the wetlands itself. Loss of biodiversity is one of the negative impacts that over-

grazing has on wetland resources, similarly this idea supported by IFAD/EPLAUA Project Planning Team

(2007). So wet land affected directly or indirectly by human and live stock, it needs to make awareness for

the society how to use the wet land.

Settlement Area (Built-up Area)

Farmer’s villages were one of the feed sources, where there is availability of animal feed and around the

kebele centre, woreda, zone and region town in the sub-basin. According to GIS data result; the coverage

of settlement area is 87,829.29(5.56 %) hectare of the feed source area in sub-basin. As in the Figure 43

indicated, the settlement area used for grazing, back yard forage production and for feed storage. The

sample points for settlement area in the sub-basin shown in the socio-economy part of document. The

representative of the sub-basin settlement area coverage is indicted in Figure 34 and Table 20.



Figure 43: settlement area used for grazing, back yard forage production and for feed storage

4.2.2.2 Cultivated Land

According to detailed filed survey result, 88.4% household of the sub-basin people depend on farming.

Though the area of cultivated land covered is the highest feed source that is 825,176.23 hectare (as GIS

processed result). Major crops like maize, teff, millet, wheat, barley, rice, peas, beans, check pea, vetch,

potatoes and others are cultivated in the sub-basin. These crops are sources of crop residues for livestock;

the area covered for cultivation is 825,176.23(52.26%) hectare as sample area in Table 20. As in the

household survey 88.4% respondents answered that living with cultivated crops, in addition in the group

discussion and secondary questionnaires response, the coverage of crop area higher than other feed

sources.

In the sub-basin as livestock production is mainly targeted as input function for crop production, there is

shortage of grazing land and hence the basal feed resource base are more of crop-residues; natural pasture,

hay from open grass land and industrial by products and stubble grazing. According to the woreda experts’

interview and field observations result the contribution of crop-residues and stubble grazing from teff,

barley, maize Stover, field pea, millet, wheat, rice and bean could be mentioned for Dry Matter (DM)

production as livestock feed.



As cropland expands natural pasture become fragmented and remain as patches. During the rainy season

when crops are in the ground, animals must be tethered or close herded to prevent crop damage. Farmers

in the study area have a practice of collecting crop residues and hay when available around their houses,

but they feed without any treatment and management as shown in Figure 44.

Figure 44: Collected crop residues at Denbeya Woreda but done with poor management


Crop residues and hay make a major contribution of animal feed especially in January through August but

the quality is poor and no urea treatment used. Thereafter from September up to December natural pasture

and stubble grazing/crop aftermath are the main sources of feed for livestock. Feed scarcity may exist in

the months July and August where both crop residues and hay are declining or insufficient. Supply and

quality of natural pasture is lowest when supply and quality of crop residues is highest. As supply and

quality of pasture declines so residues (if available) substitute for pasture. As the total supply of pasture

declines, the period in which residues contribute to the feed supply extends. As during detailed field

survey checked the main problem in most of the sub-basin no proper management of crop residues, such

as no shading, no urea treatment, trampling, etc. Aftermath grazing is common in the sub-basin after all

crops harvested as shown in Figure 47, but it has negative effect on water and soil conservation and

encouraged free grazing that opposite to current government policy, so it will be considered both local,

zonal, regional and national government.



In the study area sample area observed for cultivated land by kebele and woreda are shown in special map

in Figure 45. In the sub-basin observation done on 106 sites, of these major crop lands were identified

based on individual and the whole species occurrence as shown Table 25 and Figure 45 and 46. According

to the result teff, maize/sorghum and millet occur dominantly crops both in individual and whole species

occurrence by frequency teff 152, maize/sorghum, 134 and millet 109 respectively. In addition both

individual and whole occurrence of species by percentage is 45.65 (16.29), 40.24 (14.36) and 32.73

(11.68) for teff, maize and millet respectively.

Table 25: Identified dominant crop species in the sub-basin


Crop cover type

Maize/

sorghum Teff millet wheat barely Rice bean pea

Chick

pea vetch potato Others



whole sites in the sub-

basin 134 152 109 74 79 10 73 62 63 38 43 96


occurrence by sites 40.24 45.65 32.73 22.22 23.72 3.00 21.92 18.62 18.92 11.41 12.91 28.83


occurrence over the

whole species 14.36 16.29 11.68 7.93 8.47 1.07 7.82 6.65 6.75 4.07 4.61 10.29



Figure 45 Observed cultivated land points based on ACZ in the sub-basin

Source: GIS data, 2014



Figure 46: Graph shows dominant crop species


In sub-basin produces about 1,969,077.32 ton of crop residues on 1,128,738.22 hectare, which covers

about 65.71% of the annual DM feed produced. It covers 718,641 TLU per year. Crop is sown with the

onset of main rainy season. However, in some years rainfall is erratic and possibility of crop failure

occurred. In such cases farmers cut and feed the crops to their animals.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Individual species occurrence

from 333 sites


occurrence



species



Figure 47: Aftermath grazing in North Achefer woreda


4.2.2.3 Industrial by-Products

In the sub-basin there are small-scale local mills, which in one way or another have contribution in

supplying varieties of grain by-products. Pulse hulls are commonly used as feed for animals. Among

others the most significant by-product of small scale local mills especially in rice producing areas of the

subbasin Fogera Woreda, is rice hull and rice bran. There are many small scale oil mills, which notably co

ntribute to the oilseed cake supplies. Despite that, their contribution is declining from year to year due to

increased price and decreased availability of oilseeds. Gondar (Dashen), which produces remarkably large

quantity of spent grain to be used as feed for livestock. The most commonly used non-conventional feed in

the area is by-product of home brewed and distilled beverages (tela and areki atela) in woreda, zone,

region and other small kebel towns in the sub-basin. It contributes a lot especially for the urban and peri-

urban dairy farmers. Use of waste from the milling houses and grain stores is common.



4.2.2.4 Improved Forage

Improved forage species in the Tana sub-basin includes grasses, herbaceous legumes and bushes/tree

legumes were practiced as shown in Figure 48. These improved forage development using different

strategies like back yard, over sowing, area closure, intercropping, under sowing, alley cropping, etc.

Common species used for improved forage are Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), cow pea (Vigna

unguiculata), Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), chibaha (Ficus thonnigii), Sespania (Sespania saspan),

Chamaecytisus palmensis (Tree lucerne), Stylo (stylosanthes hamata cultivar verano and stylosanthes

scabracultivar seca), Alfalfa (medicago sativa), Oats (avena sativa), Rhodes grass (chloris gayana),

Common vetch (vicia dasycarpa), Clover (trifolium species), etc, Pigeon pea, sesbania and Napier grass

are planted on terraces and check dams as a means of protecting soil erosion and sometimes they are

planted on irrigated areas and backyards. Oats is cultivated mostly in pure stands and occasionally in

mixture with vetch. Oats in the sub-basin is used as human food and animal feed. Pigeon pea and cow pea

are used as dual purpose crops. The common practice is to allow the forage crops to set seed and the

residue is used as feed for livestock. With pigeon pea, after collecting the mature pods the green forage left

on the plant is pruned and used as animal feed, the detail improved forage type, type of strategy and

practical areas in the sub-basin indicated in the Table 26 below. In general as assured in the field work

there is high feed gap in both sub-basin, so it needs high commitment from government, non- government,

community, experts, others concerned body to produce high quantity and quality both under irrigation and

rain fad program. In addition it asks government policy and legality to be practical filling this feed gap.

Farmers have adopted the development and utilization of an indigenous fodder tree which called Chibiha

in Amharic (Ficus thonningii). Among other local trees in the area Ficus thonningii is found very

important to as a source of fodder for livestock in North Armachiho, Gonder zuria, Dembya, chilega,

Woreta, Takusa, Alefa, woreda. Sesbania sesban is already adopted and developed on backyard for animal

feed.



Pigeon pea at area closure in Takusa woreda Chibaha at back yard in Lay-Armachiho woreda

Saspania on bund at Farta woreda Treelucern developed in mynet kebele at weyn wuha water shad

Figure 48: Improved forage production in the sub-basin at different sites.

Sources: Field observation, 2014



Table 26: Summarized improved forage species strategies practiced in sub-basin

Sources: Field observation, 2014

S/No Type of improved

forge species

Type strategies applied Practical areas of these improved species by

woreda

1 Sesbania sesban Back yard, strips, inter-crop with

annual as well as perennial crops

by using seedlings and seeds.

It practiced in all study woredas

2 Chamaecytisus

palmensis (Tree

lucerne)

Back yard, forage strips

(including bunds and contour

strips and in alley farming. It will

establish both direct seeding and

transplanted seedlings.

Farta, Estie, dangila and Fagita

3 Alfalfa (medicago

sativa)

Back yard, mixed pasture at field

using direct sowing.

Farta, South and North Achefer, Gonder zuria,

Fagita lakoma, Woreta, Dangila,

B/Zuria,Mecha, Chilega, Dembiya, Dera,

Takusa and Alefa

4 Clover (trifolium

species)

Direct sowing on natural pasture. Practiced in all woreda except North achefer

5 Common vetch

(vicia dasycarpa)

Under sowing of high land crops

and combines very well with oats

to form an excellent, easily

harvested forge.


6 Cow pea (vigna

unguiculata)

Under sow in to sorghum, strips

alongside another crop, back

yard.

Fogera, Debub achefer, Dera, Denbiya, chilega

woredas.

7 Stylo (stylosanthes

hamata cultivar

verano and

stylosanthes

scabracultivar seca)

Grazing land Over sowing of

poor, stock exclusion area, under

sowing and mixed pastures.

Mecha, dangla woreta woredas

8 Elephant (Napier)

grass (pennisetum

purpureum)

Back yard, planting on contour

strips and in gullies to control

erosion, grown as a mixed forage

with climbing legumes like

common vetch, green leaf silver

leaf and lablab.


9 Oats (avena sativa) Pure and/or mixed pasture by

direct sowing.

Sekela, Estie, Farta, Fagita Lakoma, Farta,

Dangila, Lay-armachiho, Wogera.

10 Rhodes grass

(chloris gayana)

Back yard, erosion control

through strip and gully planting,

exclusion area.

Mecha, G/zuria, Dera and Fogera.

11 Chibeha (Ficus

thonningii)

Back yard, fencerow, North and South achefer, Lay-Armachiho,

G/zuria and Farta woredas

12 Cajanus cajan

(pigeon pea)

Forage strips, hedges, back yard,

intercropping using direct sowing

rather than transplanting for good

production.

Fogera, Debub achefer, Dera, Denbiya, chilega

woredas



4.2.3 Major Factors Affecting Feed Resource

Feed sources are affected by different factors like slope, thermal zone, Elivation, rainfall, etc.

4.2.3.1 Slope

Slope variation is one of the most important causes of poor livestock distribution on feed resources of the

sub-basin. The reluctance of livestock to use steep slopes is not entirely undesirable, since these areas are

often fragile and valley bottoms can better withstand grazing. However, in many cases slopes serve as

barriers to the use of benches and ridge tops above valley bottoms. The different slope categories are 0-2

% flat, 2-5% gentle undulating, 5-8 undulating, 8-15% rolling, 15-30% moderately suitable, 30-60% steep

and greater than 60% very steep. Livestock vary considerable in their willingness to use steep terrain.

Large and heavy animals such as mature cattle have difficulty in traversing steep, rocky slopes. Because of

their small size, greater agility and surefootedness, sheep and goats use these areas more readily. Slope of

the study area is also one of the major determinants for selection of land suitability for primary utilization

type and it is categorized and delineated with similar techniques with that of the elevation classification.

As FAO, 1991 the slope classified grazing land (feed resources) for livestock suitability is indicated in

Table 27.

Table 27: FAO slope (degree) classification for livestock suitability

Sources: - FAO, 1991

The estimated slope classes of the area and its proportion area for each slope class is indicated in Table 28

is 79.31% (1252428.52 hectare) of land with slope range 0-15% is an area used for highly suitable for

cattle, sheep and goats. The land with slope range of 15-30% having 14.18% (223945.80 hectares) is

moderately suitable for cattle and sheep but still highly suitable for goats. Similarly based on the slope

class assessment result of land with slope range of 30-60% having 6.18% (97608.65 hectares) is found to

be preferred for livestock production (cattle, sheep, and goat) with additional management; whereas, the

land having slope >60% with an area 0.32% (5113.96 hectares) should be out of livestock use; that land

can be protected from any interferences. If slope alone is considered as the only decisive factor in

determining land use planning 79.31% (1252428.52 hectare) of the sub-basin with slope <15% can be

allocated for livestock production purpose as FAO, 1991classification indicated above table. The

remaining 20.69 % used for conservation and hay (green feed) production by using cut and carry.

Factor rating camel cattle Sheep/goat

S1 0-8 0-16 0-16

S2 8-16 16-30 16-30

S3 16-30 30-40 30-50

N >30 >40 >50



Table 28: Number of slope classes in the sub-basin

Source: Metrological data from ADSWE

4.2.3.2 Thermal Zone (ACZ)

Temperature differences are one of the most important causes of poor livestock distribution on feed

resources of the sub-basin. This variation causes for decline production in live stock product and feed

resources. In the sub-basin indigenous cattle, sheep, goat and equine adopted the environment. The

average temperature adaptation of livestock in the sub-basin is 15 oC.

Almost four-fifth (79.37%) of the area has between temperature of 16-21oC under the ACZ of moist tepid

that suited for exotic and indigenous livestock breed. Similarly 96.37 % of the total area is covered by

moist tepid, moist cool and sub-humid tepid agro-climate zone within similar temperature range.

Temperature causes stress to animals in hot, warm and very cool climates. Heat to the body comes mainly

from outside and from the metabolism within the body metabolic heat. It costs energy to get rid of excess

heat and to maintain the body temperature. When body temperature is high appetite is lost, resulting in a

negative energy balance and sometimes with heart collapses. It is evident that temperatures variability also

affect water intake which may varies with type of animals and production level. The special distribution of

thermal zone is shown in the Table 29. In addition the LGP and altitude range of the sub-basin lies

between 131 and 221days and 1327 and 3963 meter respectively, that suitable for the growth of different

vegetation as sources of feed.

Slope class Slope rang Area in hectare % share

Class 1 0-2% 556340.30 35.23

Class 2 2-5% 302457.34 19.15

Class 3 5-8% 153841.57 9.74

Class 4 8-15% 239789.31 15.19

Class 5 15-30% 223945.80 14.18

Class 6 30-60% 97608.65 6.18

Class 7 >60% 5113.96 0.32

Total Total 1579096.93 100



Table 29: Different classes of ACZ in the sub-basin

LGP

rang LGP

Altitude

rang (m)

Temperature

range

thermal

zone ACZ_ Area (ha) % share

131-180 Moist 1327-1700 21-23.41 Warm Moist warm 10107.34 0.64

131-180 Moist 1700-2500 16-21 Tepid Moist tepid 1253320.28 79.37

131-180 Moist 2500-3375 11-16 Cool Moist cool 78940.34 5.00

131-180 Moist 3375-3963 7.5-11 Cold Moist cold 3137.89 0.20

131-180 Moist 3963-4109 6.6-7.5

Very

cold Moist very cold 117.15 0.01

181-221 Sub-humid 1700-2500 16-21 Tepid Sub-humid tepid 188790.54 11.96

181-221 Sub-humid 2500-3375 11-16 Cool Sub-humid cool 44485.69 2.82

181-221 Sub-humid 3375-3963 7.5-11 Cold Sub-humid cold 197.70 0.01

4.2.3.3 Elivation

Information gathered on altitude helps to advice on identifying different elevation classes, which are

suitable for different rangeland vegetation cover like grasses, tree, bush/shrub species and accessibility for

live stock (cattle, sheep, goat and equine) production in the sub-basin. Feed resources grown in the low

land does not effectively in upper altitude in various altitude ranges. For instance, Andropogon

cenchriformis schumach Cenchrus ciliaris (Bufflegrass), Chloris gayana (Rhodes grass), would effectively

grow in the lower altitude does not effectively grow in the upper region; the opposite is true to Medicago

sativa (tree lucern), oats (Avena sativa,) vetch (Vicia sativa). Similarly livestock breed of cattle, sheep

goat and equine productivity varies with their best suitable altitude.

4.2.3.4 Soil

Soil depth is one of the environmental requirements which determined the suitability of rangeland

utilization type. According to FAO , 1991 extensive grazing guide line range land soil depth suitability

classification is >100cm, 50-100cm, 25-50cm and <25cm. Effective soil depth measurement was

undertaken on each soil mapping unit (SMU) in the sub-basin. After soil depth analysis, the soil depth

classes were recognized and it enables to identify land suitability for range land. All forage plants used a

source of livestock feed are rooted in the soil and it is from the soil that the plants draw the water essential

for their growth. Furthermore, the soils are very important to different animal species as a source of natural

mineral and sleeping ground in the basin rangelands. Thus, the inclusion of soil parameter as a land quality

is very important both for the plants which are the source of animal feed and the animal as well. Soil has

embodied both the mixture of physical and chemical properties that have an important value for livestock

production.



4.2.3.5 Rain Fall

Moisture is one of the most important land qualities, as all plants are affected by moisture availability.

Rain fall distributions on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (rather than annual total rainfall) are required to

predict patterns of pasture growth. Anywhere in the tropics moisture deficits are the most limitation to

pasture production .The amount of moisture that should be available for good growth and development of

plants are however very different between natural vegetation for extensive grazing and crops. Natural

pasture is better adapted to variable rain fall, surviving longer drought periods and making more efficient

use of whatever moisture is available (FAO, 1991). In the tropics, range of rain fall essential for natural

pasture production is given within the range of 500 to 1500mm.Climatic information processed in the

sub-basin indicated that, the basin has a minimum and maximum annual rain fall ranged from 815 to 2452

mm. So is the best for varieties of forage species development. As a result, various natural forage SPPs are

acclimatized and grown in the sub-basin and so suitable improved forge shall be used to improve the LUT

in addition to management practices.

4.2.4 Feeding System

Different feeding system in the sub-basin are adopted, free grazing, cut an carry, crop residues, by product

sand others are common.

4.2.4.1 Free Grazing

The free grazing system has contributed significantly to the land degradation problem in the sub-basin,

where grazing on hillsides and other fragile areas is widespread during the rainy season when other

sources of feed (e.g., stubble grazing and crop residues) are in short supply. Following harvest during the

dry season, all cropland become open to free grazing (stubble) until the next growing season. During this

free grazing period, the little vegetative cover is completely grazed, the soils become bare and compacted,

and farmers have to till the land several times to loosen up the soil to allow infiltration of the rains and

avoid sheet erosion. As observed at field survey, in some woreda Farta, Fogera, Addis zemen, Gonder

zuria, bigan tether feeding but not supported in extension services. In Farta woreda at Alem ber kebele

(Chabi got) start tether feeding forming cooperative (47 member) to produce hay and checked in the field

when they harvest hay as shown in Figure 49.

During field survey, it is observed that in some Woredas like Farta, Fogera, Libokemkem and Gonder

zuria, farmers start tether feeding even though it its infant stage. In Farta woreda at Alem ber kebele

(Chabi got) tether feeding if performed by cooperative (with 47 members) by producing hay as checked

during the field survey. This hay support the gap of tether feeding in the kebel as explained during

interviewed both development agent and the members.



Figure 49: Hay produced at Chabi got by cooperative.


According to House hold survey result, awareness on impact of free grazing system of feeding in the

community is reached at higher level as expressed by 90% of the respondents, but practically it is not true.

Table 30: HH survey result on impacts of free grazing

Awareness situation Frequency Valid Percent

Awareness impact of free Grazing 3515 90.00

No awareness on impact of free

Grazing

357 10.00

Total 3923 100.0

Source: HH survey result, 2014

4.2.4.2 Cut and Carry

Different staff of the OoARD claims that many improved/cultivated forage crops have been introduced

and demonstrated in the sub-basin. Among others oats (commonly called ‘Sinar’ or ‘Gerima’ in Amharic),

vetch, tagasaste (tree lucerne) in the cooler highlands and lablab, pigeon pea, Napier grass, sesbania and

leucaena in the warmer parts of the sub-basin are grown by farmers. Oats and vetch are conventionally

cultivated in arable lands either in pure stand or in mixture, while most other forage crops are established

in the backyards, fence lines, field borders and stock exclusion areas. Lablab and pigeon pea are most

often intercropped with sorghum and maize. The demand for pigeon pea is increasing as a result of its

nature as a dual purpose crop (human food and animal feed). All these foraged and ready (mature) for feed

farmers used cut and carry system to feed for their livestock.



4.2.4.3 Crop Residues

Teff, barley and wheat straws, and all legume haulms are preferred by farmers to feed their animals. Oxen,

fattening animals and milking cows are the primary animals to be fed with the best available feed. In the

highlands pulse crop residues are offered to equines. Farmers explained that cereal straws and stovers are

not suitable for equines. Crop residue improvement strategy like urea treatment is only at demonstration

stage in the kebele and Woreda but it is not commonly practiced in the whole sub-basin.

4.2.4.4 By-products

Of the agro-industrial by-products, rice hull, rice bran and noug seedcake are the most commonly available

which are used as animal feed in the sub-basin. These by-products are usually mixed with residues of

home brewed beverages (Atela) and fed to animals. The agro-industrial by-products, especially rice hull,

rice bran, Stovere and straw are not efficiently utilized.

4.2.4.5 Other Feed Resources

The most commonly used non-conventional feed in the area is industrial by-product of home brewed and

distilled beverages (tela and areki atela) in the sub-basin through kebel, zone, woreda and other small

villages. It contributes a lot especially for the urban and peri-urban dairy farmers. Use of waste from the

milling houses and grain stores is common. These feed sources are used for poultry and sheep. Pulse hulls

from lentil, field pea and grass pea are some sources of supplement feeds especially for horses.

4.2.5 Dry Matter Production

Currently three feed resource types are identified: (i) natural pastures, (ii) crop residues, (iii) aftermath

grazing on cropland from which the grain and (very often) residues have been removed. The estimation of

the annual production of these resource types is described below from three resources.

4.2.5.1 Natural Pastures and Herbage Production

According PADS, 2004 as sited Oromiya water works design and supervision enterprise, herbage yield be

used as a conversion factor estimate total dry matter yield shown ton per hectare (1.4, 2.3, 0.9, 0.5 and 0.4)

and the biomass production from naturally available vegetations is indicated in Table 31.

The estimated total area of the vegetation cover in the sub-basin for feed resources and the total dry matter

yield is 1,246,184.60 hectare and 1643705.56 ton respectively. From the expected amount of feed to be

produced in the sub-basin if 50% (821,852.78 ton) is available to livestock, In the sub-basin most feed

comes from shrub and bush land, grass land , wet land, forest land and cultivated land (included built up

area) by 5.59%, 21.02%, 0.96%, 2.38% and 70.02% respectively.



Table 31: Natural pasture herbage production in the sub-basin

Cover type

Herbage

yield

(ton/ha)

Parameters

Area (ha) % of

proportion

DM (ton) % of

production

Moderately cultivated 0.9 241,910.52 19.41 217719.47 13.25 Grassland including afro-alpine 2.3 150,214.49 12.05 345493.33 21.02 Dense natural forest 0.5 17,828.38 1.43 8914.19 0.54 Plantation forest 0.5 60,350.65 4.84 30175.33 1.84 open and dense shrub land and

degraded Open wooded shrub land

0.9

102,071.16 0.00 91864.04 5.59 Sparsely cultivated land 1.4 55,429.09 8.19 77600.73 4.72 Farmers village 1.4 83,648.08 4.45 117107.31 7.12 Intensively cultivated land 1.4 527,836.62 6.71 738971.27 44.96 seasonal wet land 2.3 6,895.61 42.36 15859.90 0.96 Total 1,246,184.60 100 1,643,705.56 100

4.2.5.2 Crop Residue Production

Crop residue production was estimated by multiplying crop production data with established conversion

factors for each crop produced in the sub-basin. Different crop types data for grain production taken during

detail field survey in the year 2012/13. Assuming the edible proportion of the crop residues to be 70%

(Kayouli, 1996), Zinash and Seyoum (1991) reported that 63% of cereal straws is utilized as feed for

livestock, 20% is used for fuel, 10 and 7 % are used, for house construction and bedding respectively,

indicating that the major use of crop residues by smallholders in Ethiopia is as feed for livestock. The total

area used for crop production is 446,385.37 hectare of this area the crop residue production varies as crop

type as shown in Table 32 below. The total crop residue in the sub-basin 3,029,349.73 tone of this crop

residue 63% (1,969,077.32 ton) is used for livestock feed.



Table 32: Crop residue production in the sub-basin

S/No Crop type Residue Area (Ha) Grain (tons) Conversion rate

(DM/ha/year)

Crop residue

(tons)

1 Teff Straw 106617.23 211027.36 1.5 316541.04

2 Wheat Straw 39871.23 116759.95 1.5 175139.93

3 Barley Straw 66997.74 186133.64 1.5 279200.46

4 Rice Straw 26268.57 183689.59 1.3 238796.47

5 Maize Stover 85712.51 460038.89 2.2 1012085.56

6 Millet Straw 33045.76 106108.63 2 212217.27

7 Sorghum Stover 16597.92 37803.77 2.5 94509.43

8 Pulse crops haulms 25954.71 406401.5 1.2 168098.2

9 Triticale Straw 9767.35 34597.72 1.5 81741.15

10 Rye(ajja) straw 399.25 1178 1.7 2002.6

11 roots and

tubers

Roots and

tubers waste

27851.38 416840.24 0.3 7432.73

12 vegetables Vegetable

waste

7301.72 136906.17 0.25 67175.84

Total 446,385.37 2,297,485.46 - 3,029,349.73


4.2.5.3 Aftermath Grazing

Totally 1,128,738.22 hectare used for crop production activities from this area 369,953.41 hectare for

fruits and vegetables both in irrigation and rain fad that not used for aftermath grazing the other

758,784.80 hectare (cereals and pulse crops) used for aftermath grazing. The average farm cropped area

was multiplied by a standard factor of 500kgs DM per hectare (Radcliffe et al 1987). For this study the

aftermath production calculated from the area used to crop residue 411,232.27 hectare (rain fed area).

=411,232.27hectare X 500kg= 205616135kg

=205,616.14 ton

4.2.6 Feed Requirement (balance sheet)

At the rate of production feed requirements for a TLU on weight basis (3 %), an amount of 2.74 ton per

TLU per annum is required. Then the total amount of dry matter need for the livestock in Lake Tana sub-

basin is calculated and the quantity is 5,395,271.86 ton. This total biomass yield is calculated from Natural

pasture, crop residues and aftermath and indicated in Table mm is 2,996,546.242 ton.

Table 33: Estimated biomass from natural pasture land, crop residue and aftermath

No Dry matter sources Area (in ha) DMY (ton) % of DMY production

1 Natural pasture land 1,246,184.60 852,821.78 27.43

2 Crop residue 446,385.37 1,969,077.32 65.71

3 Aftermath grazing 446,385.37 205,616.14 6.86

Total 2,996,546.24 100



Sources: processed data

The total TLU in the sub-basin is estimated to be 2,008,197. Since one TLU requires 2.74 tons/annum for

maintenances and production, then the total amount of feed required in the sub-basin is estimated to be

5,395,271.86 tons/annum. When we calculate the total amount of feed required with its production there is

a deficit of 2,446,393.62(45.54%) tons/annum. The produced 2,996,546.24 (54.45%) ton shows that in the

basin only covered around 7 month (200 days only) of the year by locally available natural feed, crop

residue and aftermath. The other 5 months will be covered by farmers by producing improved forage,

bought by-products, destocking, etc. If annual maintenance requirement is considered (i.e at the rate of

2.5% of the TLU on weight basis) the deficit is decreased to 1,562,060.95 (34.27%) ton.

In other way according to the socio-economic survey collected data from household and group discussion,

the major problems associated with shortage of animal feed are drought, scarcity of water, increment in

grazing stock, encroachment weed, lack of improved seeds, cuts and seedlings, erratic rainfall, lack of

awareness, etc. According to 4002 household interview results for the question major constraint of

livestock production is ranked as shown in the table 34 below, that show more than three-fifth respondent

(61.9%) responded livestock feed shortage the most severe problem in the sub-basin. The measures taken

to cope with problems of feed shortage are variations within the sub-basin (among woredas) are increased

sale of animals, conserving feed, collect pods and leaves, etc. So it needs governmental policy and

community commitment to give sustainable solution.

Similarly the respondent responded that for the question for the major reason aggravating feed scarcity is

explained in Table 34 below. Of the respondents more than three-forth (76.10%) answered expansion of

farm land as first rank, 10.9% fluctuation of rain fall as second rank, 5.6% rising livestock population as

third rank.

Table 34: Major reasons aggravating feed problem in the sub-basin

4.2.6.1 Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is the total number of animals that a pasture is capable of supporting year after year. It is

calculated from an estimation of annual production of consumable vegetation, linked to animal

requirements for feed and nutrients. Animal numbers are generally expressed in some substitution unit,

such as tropical livestock units, which all use distinct substitution ratios for the different classes of

livestock. Feed requirements for livestock are estimated on the basis of feed intake in dry matter (DM) as a

Reasons aggravating feed Frequency Percent

Expansion of Farm Land 2445 76.1

Rising Livestock Population 180 5.6

Rain Fluctuation 349 10.9

Expansion of Thorny Shrubs on Pasture Land 73 2.3

Supply Shortage of seed and seedlings of Animal Feed 56 1.7

Lack of Awareness 106 3.3



% of live weight, which are sometimes corrected for feed quality to estimate protein and energy

requirements for specific maintenance and productive functions (de Leeuw and Tothill, 1990).

To determine the carrying capacity of the pasture (grazing land); first someone shall answer the questions

like how much dry matter does your live stock consumed? And how much dry matter does that pasture

can produce?

To calculate carrying capacity by production requirement:-

Total DMY ÷ [(daily forage demand for one TLU) x (Grazing days)]

The total DMY in the study area obtained 2,996,546.24 tones; daily forage demand for one TLU is 7.5 kg

and 365 days of grazing.

= 2,996,546.24 tones x1000 ÷ [(7.5 kg x 365)]

= 1,094,628. 76TLU per year

= 1,094,628.76 TLU÷1,268,673.52 hectare=0.86TLU/ha/year or 1.16 hectare/ TLU/year

4.2.6.2 Stocking Rate

Stocking rate is the number of animals (animal unit) for which a grassland (grazing land) unit can provide

adequate dry matter forage for a specified length of time. Stocking rate depends on the amount of herbage

biomass available to grazing animals, the time of year, the type of grazing system used and the amount of

forage consumed by livestock per specific time. Stocking rate is commonly presented as acres (hectare)

per animal unit month (AUM) or its reciprocal, AUM's per acre (hectare). Many factors affect stocking

rate, including but not limited to animal species, acres (hectare) of land useable for grazing, rainfall, forage

species and productivity, topography, water distribution, and class of livestock (e.g., lactating, growing,

etc.). Two general considerations in establishing an appropriate stocking rate are animal performance and

the forage resource. Calculation of stocking rate can be possible from carrying capacity.

The carrying capacity of the sub-basin in one year is 1,094,628.76 TLU; but the total TLU of the sub-basin

is 2,608,901 TLU; calculated from total the population in the study area Table 1. So the sub-basin can

support the population for only 200 days of the year. We can conclude that the sub-basin need additional

feed sources to support total population or destocking the population.

Annual stocking rate= (carrying capacity in TLU ÷total TLU) X 365 days

= [(1,094,628.76÷2008197)] X365

= 200 days

4.2.6.3 Stocking Density (SD)

It is defined as number of animals on a particular land at a particular point of time. The total population of

livestock in the sub-basin is 2,008,197 in TLU and the total grazing and browsing land in hectare is

1,268,673.52; so the stocking density of the sub-basin based on the available resources is 1.58TLU per



hectare per year or 0.63ha/TLU/year, this figure shows that the population is overcrowded even less than

one hectare per TLU.

4.2.7 Existing potentials, opportunities, constraints and solutions for

livestock production and feed resources

In the sub-basin there are ample amount of feed resources with opportunities and constraints (problems).

Accordingly in the detail tries to discuss with the concerned bodies and gathered valuable information

during the field survey both cases from information gathered during field survey as follows.

At different levels of study, data on feed resources, opportunities, constraints and remedies are collected

from different sources like FGD, experts, key informants and field observations. Findings are summarized

as followed.

4.2.7.1 Potentials and Opportunities

Livestock development potential and feed resources assessment was done during field observation period

by looking into the present situations, collecting secondary data and discussing with respective bodies. All

described at the previous sections accordingly. As a result, the following potentials which shall be seen

more in the land evaluation and management plan are identified in the study area and summarised

Presence of best local livestock breeds ( Washera and Farta sheep, Fogera cattle, Tilili, Melo-

Hamisit, and , Mecha, Farta/Gassy Poultry, )

Availability of most of the study area has got suitable temperature, rainfall, sunshine, wind and

moisture content for both the feed resources and livestock development)

Availability of huge number and diversified livestock resources (all livestock types without camel

are reared in the sub-basin)

Availability of local and diversified, forge resources like local grasses, legumes and herbs and

accustomed improved forage SPPS are available in the study area.

availability of large amount of crop residues

Availability of indigenous farmers’ knowledge for livestock and feed development.

Availability of different water points, which are permanent and temporary used for

drinking and irrigation

Presence of different inputs and technologies

Presence of different land use/land cover

Presence of market place (specially at kebele and woreda)

Good governance at different levels (zone, woreda and kebele)

Suitable climate to cultivate improved forage species under irrigation

The rich traditional and indigenous knowledge



Presence different research centre in the sub-basin

From Woreda and Kebeles FGD assessment results it is commonly expressed as:

Potential ACZ, Large grazing area, best local livestock(cattle, sheep, poultry), crop residue, local

industries by-products like Brent, large mountain areas for cut and carry and apiculture, water, irrigable

land and fish sources are considered as best potentials in the sub-basins

4.2.7.2 Opportunities

These are favourable conditions that comprised combination of favourable circumstances or situations for

livestock development. The main favourable conditions found in the sub-basin which are identified from

various sources like FGDs, Key informants, secondary data and field observations that enhance livestock

development in the sub-basin are:

Development of different infrastructures [(roads( private vet clinics at North Achefer and Mecha

Woreda), means of communication (like cell-phone and electric power for some kebeles)]

Demand and prices growth of livestock and their products

Home and market opportunities are increased (home and Sudan)

Availability of different training, research and multiplication centres (Bahir dar and Debre Tabor

Universities, Regional Agricultural Research Centre, TVTs, Bahir Dar Cattle Breed Improvement

Centre (AI), Regional livestock Health Laboratory, Adet. Livestock research and improvement

site, Andasa Poultry Multiplication Centre.

Agro-Industries that produced by-products for livestock (Bahir Dar Flour Factories, Oil

Processing factories at Bahir Dar, Zone and Woreda towns, Dashen brewery factory)

Establishment of Jawe sugar factories for sources of molasses and urea-block production

Availability of NGOs (About 12 NOGs are available in the study area that support the livestock

development with their other intervention areas).

4.2.7.3 Problems and Constraints

Limiting factors that affect the livestock development in the sub-basin are assessed based on the

information collected from various sources like HH survey field observation and secondary sources,

constraints that hindered livestock development in the sub-basin are identified and following are

considered as the main ones;

Feed shortage (this is due to high human population and decreasing of grazing land)

As obviously indicated in the table below, the lion share of livestock development constraints in the sub-

basin is taken by feed shortage (61.9%). This is mainly due to diminishing of grazing land, huge number

of livestock per HH at the areas around Lake Tana, poor livestock management (grazing) systems low

productivity and decreasing of grazing lands, poor extension services and poor crop residues management.



Table 35 Major Constraint of Livestock Production by HH

Constraints Frequency Percent Feed Shortage 2430 61.9 Animal Disease 608 15.5 Flood 84 2.1 Market Problem 56 1.4 Budget Shortage 317 8.1 Shortage of Water 67 1.7 Lack of Technical Skill on Livestock

Management 194 4.9

Shortage in Supply of seed and seedling 34 .9 Chemicals Affecting Bee keeping 18 .5 Shortage of Improved Animals 62 1.6 Animal Theft 56 1.4 Total 3926 100.0

Source, HH survey result, 2014

Traditional husbandry system (traditional breeding. Feeding, sheltering, and marketing...)

Low health services provision (One vet clinics and one or two professionals for three Kebeles)



Low attention given to the sub-sector development by respective bodies

Pesticides application

High diseases prevalence

Poor extension services,

Poor grassland management and development

Non homogenous Oregano gram implementation of Livestock Agency

Absences of support from the region and researcher for livestock breed characterization and

improved forge for grazing land improvement

High cost and shortage of improved livestock breeds

Absences of poultry treatment and vaccination

Use conflict on communal grass land

Late vaccine services

Poor crop residue improvement

Free grazing

Demand of control grazing without sufficient feed production or system development for all

types of livestock, breeding system, labour or transport.

The expansion of eucalyptuses tree that hinder the crop production , that has no use for feed,

has shed effect

Absences of rules or implementation to maintain natural grazing lands



Gully formation and unable to control at communal grazing land

Weed invasion and unable to control or to eradicate

According to HH hold respondents, survey result situation of feed scarcity of animals over the last recent

years shows that increasing (80%), deceasing (19.5%) and no change (0.5%) as shown in Table 37 below.

Four-fifth (80%) responded that feed scarcity is increasing, so it needs short response from society,

experts, government, NGO, etc, in the sub-basin.

Table 36: Change in scarcity of animal feed over the last recent years

Source: HH Survey result (2014)

Lack of awareness on feeding system (zero grazing, tethering grazing, etc)

Lack of infrastructures (road, electric, telephone)

Planning is not considering the livestock potentials of the woreda.

Lack of accessibility of water supply

Encroachment of weeds, degradation, cultivation, plantation, etc.

In sub-basin encroachment at grazing land is common in every Agro-Climatic Zone (ACZ); that

are degradation, weeds like amekila (hygrophila auriculata), parthenium), plantation (eucalyptus),

cultivation (farming), etc. All these factors cause soil fertility loss, ceased other grazing/ browsing/

species growth, change test of production (like milk), cause scarcity of water, etc.

Scarcity condition Frequency Percent

Feed Scarcity is increasing 2955 80.0

Feed Scarcity is decreasing 723 19.5

Feed Scarcity has no change 18 0.5

Total 3696 100



Figure 50: Encroachment of grazing land by different factors at different sites of sub-basin

Conflicts between grazing land, crop land and plantation in the sub-basin.

4.2.7.4 Solutions (Remedies)

From the overall assessment result, the livestock development gaps are identified and listed above.

The best solutions will be elaborated with optional management plan latter, however for the time being, the

following measures are forwarded to be considered by respective bodies.

Better attention to the sub-sector development

Provision of effective extension services based on the existing situations and in a sustainable

manner(to develop attitudes, skills, and to provide technical skills at all levels, at all time and places

continuously)

Appreciation of the local potentials and device mechanisms to develop and use them (livestock

breeds, feed resources)

Policies and strategies for regional livestock development (breeding, marketing, grazing.)

Special strategy to stop free grazing and implement control grazing that shall address :

Particular areas (at large bush and shrub areas; not only zero grazing but also rotational or

control grazing....)

Breeding strategy to provide services at the time of demand (all may not have bull, buck ....)

To control inbreeding ( if use their own only)

Type of livestock (goats, equines.....)

Labour ( to transport feed and waters, to feed and water animals, )

Effective feed development strategies

Especial extension strategies development for control grazing

All parties shall have common awareness and commitment to wards to control grazing

implementation (Training centres such as universities, research centres, politicians,

Administrators, community leaders...)

Practical solutions for pesticides application



Fast and quick solutions for communal grasslands maintaining and developments

Employment of the required experts

Need attention from the government considering to capacity building.

Establish research and trial centre up to kebele level.

Intensify cooperative market especially for animal products.

Practical land use land management certification

Distribute in puts (breeds, seed, seedlings, and cuts)

Make medias their works on this field (trends exchange with others)

Resolution of grazing land conflicts

Produce awareness for investors

4.3 LUT’s Descriptions and Selection Procedures

A land-use type is a kind of land use described in terms of its products and management practices (FAO,

2006). This is a general types of description used for an immediate understanding of LUTs. However at

the district and local level it has to be more detailed mainly for two purposes i.e. for determination the

requirements of a use type and then for management specifications that can be used as a basis for

extension services and for planning necessary inputs.

LUT is also defined by a set of technical specifications in a given physical, economic and social settings.

These technical specifications are known as “diagnostic” or “key attributes” (FAO, 1976).

Unlike the other LUTs, livestock production LUTs are not started and completed with one step practice, as

a result it has two distinct and correlated steps i.e. primary LUTs which deals with respects of feeds

resources and secondary LUTs that involved directly with the matter of the livestock i.e. secondary LUTs

(FAO 1996).

From different sources of information such as woreda office of agriculture, community and government

views and field assessment the following 6 secondary and 15 primary existing LUTs were provisionally

identified.

After synopsis identification, these LUTs were defined briefly based on the following points.

Benefits and services gained,

Their productivity,

The farming or use techniques applied,

The inputs utilization (species, practices and management),

Apparent agro-climatic suitability,

Market and development demand,



Unsatisfied demand in the locality,

The potentials and problems,

Suggestions by local government and

Development objectives in the area (food security, export) and the basic demands of people in the

area (FAO, 1976).

4.3.1 Primary LUTs

According to LUT’s identification steps the following potential LUTs from different sources of

information such as office of woreda Agriculture, community and government views and field assessment

the following 15 primary LUTs were identified. They are Common Vetch (Vicia sativa), oats (Avena

sativa), Cow pea (vigna unguiculata), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Chliris gayana (Rhodes grass), Stylo

(stylosanthes hamata and stylosanthes scabra), Sesbania (Sesbania sesban), Tagasaste/Tree Lucerne

(Chamaecytisus palmensis), erogroties, Trifolium species (clover), hypernia, Chibeha (Ficus thonningii,),

Pigeon pea (cajanus cajan), Chibiha ((Ficus thonningii), elephant grass and natural pasture.



Table 37: Filtering table for primary LUTs

S No

LUTs

Filtering Criteria Pennisetum purpureum Remarks

Agro-climatic Acceptance by Market demand Coverage Reasons for

suitability

Suitable. Non

Suit.

Government Community Experts Satisfied Un

satisfied/high

demand

Full Partial Acceptance rejects

1 Pigeon pea X X X X X/ high X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

2 natural

pasture

X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

3 Vetch X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

4 Eragroties X X - X - X X No

attention

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin but

horse is for

highlands

5 oats X X X X X X Being so

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

6 Cow pea X X X X X X Being so

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

7 Alfalfa X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

8 Rhodes

grass


being

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

9 Stylo X X X X X X Being so

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub

10 Sesbania X X X X X X Being so Cover all areas of



Based on the above filtering criteria, 15 LUTs are selected as common Vetch (Vicia sativa), oats (Avena sativa), Cow pea (vigna unguiculata), Alfalfa

(Medicago sativa), Chliris gayana (Rhodes grass), Stylo (stylosanthes hamata and stylosanthes scabra), Sesbania (Sesbania sesban), Tagasaste/Tree

Lucerne (Chamaecytisus palmensis), Trifolium species (clover), Chibeha (Ficus thonningii), Pigeon pea (cajanus cajan), Chibiha

((Ficus thonningii), elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)and natural pasture, Nevertheless, erogroties and hypernia are rejected for the time being due t

o the reason that priority is given for the other feed resource SPPs by the government and experts as well as market demand is satisfied. So giving

emphasise, for erogroties and hypernia production improvement, creation awareness, and improving carts are essential for the future.

suitable,

essential

the sub

11 Hyppernia X X - X X X No

attention

Its fibrous feed

12 Chibeha X - X X X X X Being so

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

13 clover X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

14 Tree

Lucerne


essential

Cover all areas of

the sub

15 Napier

grass X X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub

Total 15 - 15 12 15 15 15 _ _ _

Where, X = is positive aspects, or available, acceptable


BoEPLAU Livestock Production and Feed Resource Assessment Draft Final Report Volum VIII ADSWEPage 100

These preliminary LUTs were detail described and analyzed based FOA guidelines

As a result the following 13 UTs are selected, they proposed, for the convince of land evaluation, the

combined 5 LUTs are selected, i.e alfalfa, natural pasture, tree lucern, Rhodes and Napier grass. The main

limiting factors of these primary LUTs are described as follow;

Temperature:

Temperature determines the rate of plant growth through its effect on the rates of photosynthesis and

increase in leaf area that determine the rate of DM accumulations. In the tropics with rare exceptions,

temperature is always more than 6-100C.As this is considered the minimum temperature for plant

development, it is not necessary to look at the bottom end of the temperature scale but only at the top end,

when it is more than 400C (Pajot, 1992). However, growths of vegetations are reduced because of the

lower air temperature; and frost which may occur at and above 2000masl becomes of increasing severity

and rapidly dried out the herbs (FAO, 1984).

The present climatology assessment result showed that the study areas have the mean annual temperature

(14.07-21.560C). Then, different natural forage SPPs are grown in the sub-basin with this range of

temperature and appropriate improved forge SPPs shall be used to improve the LUT with different

development strategies.

Rain fall

Moisture is one of the most important land qualities, as all plants are affected by moisture availability.

Rain fall distributions on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (rather than annual total rainfall) are required to

predict patterns of pasture growth. Anywhere in the tropics moisture deficits are the most limitation to

pasture production .The amount of moisture that should be available for good growth and development of

plants are however very different between natural vegetation for extensive grazing and crops. Natural

pasture is better adapted to variable rain fall, surviving longer drought periods and making more efficient

use of whatever moisture is available (FAO, 1991). In the tropics, range of rain fall essential for natural

pasture production is given within the range of 500 to 1500mm.Climatic information processed in the

sub-basin indicated that, the basin has a minimum and maximum annual rain fall ranged from 814.72 to

2378.24mm. So is the best for varieties of forage species development. As a result, various natural forage

SPPs are acclimatized and grown in the sub-basin and so suitable improved forge shall be used to improve

the LUT in addition to management practices.



Altitude

Altitude is a factor that determines the distribution of climatic factors and land suitability; this influences

the crops or vegetations to be grown, rate of crops or herbs growth, natural vegetation types and their

species diversity (Alemayehu, 1998). According to FAO (1984) rainfall in Ethiopia is generally correlated

with altitude. In the sub-basin, the elevation various from 1304-4109 m.a.s.l. which affect the temperatures

and rainfall stated above. Therefore, there are different natural forage SPPs grown on the sub-basin and

suitable improved forge SPPs shall be selected to improve this LUT.

Soil Depth

Soil factors include both physical (depth, texture and structure) and chemical (adequate nutrient supply

and soil acidity) which have significant effect on the growth as well as productivity of pastures. A wide

variety of toxic substances may be found in the soil. Very small amounts of some substances that are

normally toxic are essential for good plant growth, but excesses can cause poisoning to livestock. Soil

depth is an essential land quality in pasture production since that gives roothold for the plant and provides

a store of water. Major soils found in the basin are vertisol, regosol, cambisol, luvisols, flulisols and

nitosols. From Soil survey data analyzed in the sub-basin it is estimated that more of the basin has deep

soil or >100cm, 50-100cm for Cabisol the others however may have < 25cm for regosol. Accordingly,

proper improved forage SPPs shall be used to improve this LUT.

Soil pH

Among common toxicities found in poorly drained areas is linked with potentially acid sulphate soils, and

where pH value is low and falls below 3.0 that effectively kills many forage species (FAO, 1991). As of

soil acidity, a pH value of about 4 is the lower value and does not necessarily inhibit plant growth.

Extreme high pH values which are more than 8 affect the supply of essential nutrients. Based on this

general situation of the sub-basin, appropriate natural and improved forge SPPs shall be grown to improve

the selected LUT.

LGP The growing period is the period of the year when both moisture and temperature conditions are

favourable for plant growth (FAO, 1996 AEZ).Growth periods are those in which average precipitation

equals or exceeds 50 percent of the potential evapotranspiration; an allowance is made for an extension of

the growing period due to stored soil moisture, which for most soil moisture is assumed to be 100mm

(FAO, 1984)

In the tropics, where temperature is rarely a limiting factor except at very high altitudes, LGP can be

assessed by a simple moisture balance of precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration ((FAO, 1996).



From climatic survey it is indicated that there are six LGP zones with the LGP ranges of and from 119-196

days. These, revealed that the sub-basin does have a medium range of LGPs that enable to produce verity

of natural and improved forage species to improve the selected LUT.

4.3.2 Secondary LUTs

Similarly, secondary LUTs in the sub-basin are selected; all livestock types i.e. cattle, sheep, goats,

equines, apiculture, and poultry; dominantly the local breeds are produced mainly in extensive type of

production systems.

From different sources of information such as office of agriculture, community and government views and

field assessment the following 6 existing LUTs were provisionally identified ,i.e. cattle production, sheep

production, goat production, equines production, poultry production and apiculture.

After synopsis identification, these LUTs are defined briefly based on the following points.

Benefits and services gained,

Their productivity,

The farming or use techniques applied,

The inputs utilization (species, practices and management),

Apparent agro-climatic suitability,

Market and development demand,

Unsatisfied demand in the locality,

The potentials and problems,

Suggestions by local government and

Development objectives in the area (food security, export) and the basic demands of people in the

area (FAO, 1976).

Filtering Technique

After short description of all identified LUTs, all LUTs are selected for the time being, and for further

hierarchal definition and analyses the following selection criteria were also considered.

Social aspects,

Growth and management requirements,

Intensity of diseases and pests of the area approved by the experts during field work,

The available feed for existing of livestock population,

Condition of market demand, at local and export level animal and by products.

These and other criteria are defined in the previous sections and more elaboration and characterizations are

given in the following summarization tables for each LUT including the other technical sets.



Table 38: Filtering table for secondary LUTs

Where, X = is positive aspects, or available, acceptable

S No

LUTs

Filtering Criteria Remarks

Agro climatic Acceptance by Market demand Coverage Reasons for

suitability

Suitable. Non

Suit.

Government Community Experts Satisfied Un

satisfied/high

demand

Full Partial Acceptance rejects

1 LUT1 Cattle X X X X X/ high X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

2 LUT2 - Sheep X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

3 LUT3 Goats X X X X X X Being so

suitable,

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

4 LUT5-

Equines

X - X - X - X X No

attention

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin but

horse is for

highlands

5 LUT Poultry X X X X X X Being so

essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

6 LUT

Apiculture


essential

Cover all areas of

the sub-basin

Total 6 5 6 5 1 5 6 1



Based on the above filtering criteria, 5 LUTs are selected as Cattle (for production, dairy and fattening),

Sheep (for production and fattening), Goats (for production and fattening), poultry (for egg and meat

production) and apiculture (for honey and wax production). Nevertheless, Equine

are rejected for the time being due to the reason that priority is given for the other live stock SPPs by the g

overnment and experts as well as market demand is satisfied. Nonetheless, the demand for mule at urban,

pre-urban and Woredas which have plain land form and road access for cart is very high (Bahir Dar, Bahir

Dar Zuria-Zegie, South Achefer, Dangela, Fageta Lekoma, Sekela, Dera, Fogera and Libo). So giving

emphasise, for equines production improvement, creation awareness, and improving carts are essential for

the future.

The main limiting factors affecting these secondary LUTS are;

Accessibility to Livestock feed resources

Accessibility of forage for livestock can be inhibited by steep slopes, stones, and rock out crops, dense

vegetation, flooding and other land uses blocking the movement of livestock. This is due to its relevancy

to the specific situation of the study area and availability of data that used to evaluate the land quality.

However, stones and rock out crops areas in many mountainous areas, flooding especially in the low land

valleys, land form classes and vegetation density especially noxious plants, dense forests, bushes, or

shrubs with no canopy managements are affecting the accessibility of pastures to livestock that shall be

given due attention at management plan

Temperature:

Climate acts directly upon animals; solar heat, humidity and dryness of the air, its temperature and the

intensity of winds upset or facilitate the physiological process that contribute to temperature regulation and

affect hunger, thirst, reproduction etc. Domestic animals are homothermous i.e. their body temperature

remains constant or nearly constant with irrespective of the environment in which they live except in

camel. In general the body temperature of homeotherms is between 36.5 and 420C, (Pagot, 1992). From

the climatic factors temperature is taken as the dominant one and the mean daily temperature with the

range of 10-20oC is taken as comfortable zone (FAO, 1988).

Livestock show a reduced feed-intake under heat stress resulting in lowered productivity and reduced

growth. Reproduction is also adversely affected.

Altitude

It has the indirect effect on livestock production but directly affects temperature and rain fall that have

effects directly on both the primary and secondary production. In the previous studies like OWCE, 2008,

cattle shall be produced with the altitude range of 500-3500masl with no constraints. According to



Alemayehu, 2006, cattle in Ethiopia can survive below 500and above 3700masl. The sub-basin also has

the altitude range of 1304-1409masl.

Infrastructural factors

Availability of health service for vaccination and treatment, water points and market for live animals and

cattle products and by-products, as well as, electric power, roads and large number of human population

are essential to produce cattle effectively for both fattening and dairy enterprises. The level of management

thought to be applied here is more of high level and then medium and small level to some extent.

4.3.3 Definition of management Levels for Primary and Secondary LUTs

Differences on LUT types and production systems are empirically characterized by the concept of Land

Utilization Types (LUTs). LUT consists of a set of technical specifications for production within a given

socio-economic setting. Attributes specific to a particular LUT include agronomic and physiological

information, nature of main produces, water supply type, heath service, market access, cultivation

practices, utilization of produce, and associated ones .

As a general rule, three levels of input/management are defined by different sources i.e. low, intermediate,

and high input level each of them are described briefly with regard to feed resources and livestock

production LUTs.

• Low level inputs, under a low level of inputs (traditional management assumption), the farming system

is largely subsistence based. Production is based on the use of traditional cultivars (if improved

cultivars/breeds are used, they are treated in the same way as local cultivars), labour intensive,

techniques, and no application of nutrients, no use of chemicals for pest and disease control and minimum

conservation measures. As result all livestock and forage improvement LUTs shall be described and

treated under low level of inputs/management.

• Intermediate level inputs, under an intermediate level of input (improved management assumption), the

farming/production system of forge crops or livestock is partly market oriented. Production for subsistence

plus commercial sale is a management objective. Production is based on improved varieties and breeds, on

manual labour with hand tools and/or animal traction and some mechanization, is medium labour

intensive, uses some fertilizer application, chemical pest, disease and weed control, and medicament, AI

adequate fallows and some conservation measures. So, all of the LUTs proposed for improved forage and

livestock production shall be treated under this level of management

• High level inputs, under a high level of input (advanced management assumption), the farming system is

mainly market oriented for irrigated forge production, milk, honey and meat processing. Commercial

production is a management objective. Production is based on improved or high yielding varieties and



breeds, is fully mechanized with low labour intensity and uses optimum applications of nutrients and

chemical pest, disease and weed control (GAEZ, 2012).As a result, Irrigated improved forge and all

livestock production LUTs shall be entertained under this level of management

Based on these general descriptions, specific definitions of each LUT at different level of management are

presented in the following tables.

Table 39: Hierarchal definition of feed resources (Primary) LUTs

LUT Management level

Low Intermediate High

Natural

pasture

Local SPP of plants like

Gajja, tucha, herbs, bushes

and shrubs ,subsistence, for

grazing and browsing low

labour and capital intensity

for weed control and heard

only

level 1+ some improved forage to

improve the local by over sowing + hay

making +crop residue management

Intermediate Level+ strict

weeding practices using

burning, chemicals or manual

labours. Flooding Irrigation of

level grass lands and control

grazing like cut and carry and

paddock system and fertilizer

application including manure.

So high quality of feed (fresh

grazing or in the form of hay

up to 10 ton DM per/ha/ cycle

shall produced.

Alfalfa,

Rhodes

grass, Styl

o

production

Local variety of alfalfa,

Rhodes, and style seeds will

be supplied and mixture

forage practiced on backyard,

enclosure area, strip and

hedge at farm; at this level

local breed cattle

fattening and dairy, local shee

p and goat production will be

implemented at urban, pre ur

ban and best developed

kebele area. Selection of the

area considered temperature,

rain fall, slope and pH.

Family labour and capital

intensity applied. Land size

can be < 0.25 hectare. 10 ton/

ha/year DMY can be

produced. Output is used for

their subsistence’s.

Improved variety of alfalfa, Rhodes,

and stylo seeds will be supplied and

mixture forage practiced on backyard,

enclosure area, strip and hedge at farm;

at this level local breed cattle

fattening and dairy, local sheep and goa

t production will be implemented at urb

an, pre urban and best developed kebele

area. Selection of the area considered

temperature, rain fall, slope and pH.

Family labour and capital intensity

applied. Land size can be < 0.5 hectare.

13 ton/ ha/year DMY can be produced.

Output is used for their subsistence’s.

Researched and quality alfalfa

seeds will be supplied, need

high credit, land size depends

on livestock farming size. >

50% exotic blood level cattle

for meat and milk production,

selected local sheep crossed

with pure exotic breed like

dorper, in addition

selected goat crossed with

exotic breed are used . Highly

mechanized irrigation and rain

fed, well

organized weed control applie

d it is completely surplus prod

uction and used for large dairy

farm, in addition selling forage

takes place up to abroad.

Animal feeding will be

cutting, chopping and making

ration formulation with other

feeds. It applied at urban

areas.

Napier

grass

Local variety of cuttings will

be supplied on backyard,

enclosure area, strip and

hedge at farm; at this level

local breed cattle



Improved variety of seeds and seedlings

will be supplied on backyard, enclosure

area, strip and hedge at farm. Selected

local and > 25% exotic blood level

cattle for meat and milk production,

selected local sheep and goat in

addition pure and

Researched and quality

cuttings will be supplied, need

high credit, land size depends

on livestock farming size. >

50% exotic blood level cattle

for meat and milk production,

selected local sheep crossed













ha/year DMY can be



hybrid dorper sheep breed for meat pro

duction. It will be implemented at urban

and pre- urban area. Selection of the

area considered temperature, rain fall,

slope

and pH. Land size can be 0.5 to1 hectar

e. 20 ton ha/year DMY can be produced

. Fertilizer, extension services, weeding

, hay making, silage and oxen-power

are used for production. Output used for

their livestock in green feed and

making in hay form. In addition feed

selling will be done.

with pure exotic breed like

dorper, in addition

selected goat crossed with

exotic breed are used . Highly

mechanized irrigation and rain

fed, well

organized weed control applie

d it is completely surplus prod

uction and used for large dairy

farm, in addition selling forage

takes place up to abroad.

Animal feeding will be

cutting, chopping and making

ration formulation with other

feeds. It applied at urban

areas.

Vetch, oats

, Cow pea

production

Local variety of seeds will be

implemented with sorghum

and maize, at this level local

breed

cattle fattening and dairy, loc

al sheep and goat production

will be implemented at urban,

pre urban and best developed







ha/year DMY can be



Improved variety of seeds will be

implemented with sorghum and maize,

Selected local and > 25% exotic blood

level cattle for meat and milk

production, selected local sheep and

goat in addition

pure and hybrid dorper sheep breed for

meat production. It will be implemente

d at urban and pre- urban


temperature, rain

fall, slope and pH. Land size can be 0.5

to1 hectare. 15 ton ha/year DMY can be

produced. Fertilizer, extension services

, weeding, hay making, silage and

oxen-power are used for production.

Output used for their livestock in green

feed and making in hay form. In

addition feed selling will be done.

Sesbania

Local variety of seeds and

seedlings will be supplied on

backyard, enclosure area,

strip and hedge at farm; at

this level local breed cattle

fattening and

dairy, local sheep and goat pr

oduction will be

implemented at

urban, pre urban and best dev

eloped kebele area. Selection

of the area considered

temperature, rain fall, slope

and pH. Family labour and

capital intensity applied.

Land size can be < 0.25

hectare. 12 ton/ ha/year DMY

can be produced. Output is

used for their subsistence’s.







addition pure and





slope









Tree Local variety of seeds and Improved variety of seeds and seedlings





Lucerne seedlings will be supplied on



this level local breed cattle

fattening and

dairy, local sheep and goat pr

oduction will be

implemented at

urban, pre urban and best dev

eloped kebele area. Selection

of the area considered

temperature, rain fall, slope

and pH. Family labour and

capital intensity applied.

Land size can be < 0.25

hectare. 12 ton/ ha/year DMY

can be produced. Output is

used for their subsistence’s.






addition pure and





slope









Clover

production

Local variety of seeds will be

sown on natural grazing land;

at this level local breed cattle





kebele area. Selection

of the area considered temper

ature, rain fall, slope and pH.




ha/year DMY can be




will be sown on natural grazing land;.

Selected local and > 25% exotic blood

level cattle for meat and milk

production, selected local sheep and

goat in addition

pure and hybrid dorper sheep breed for

meat production. It will be implemente

d at urban and pre- urban


temperature, rain

fall, slope and pH. Land size can be 0.5

to1 hectare. 12 ton ha/year DMY can be

produced. Fertilizer, extension services

, weeding, hay making, silage and

oxen-power are used for production.

Output used for their livestock in green

feed and making in hay form. In

addition feed selling will be done.

Pigeon pea Local variety of seeds will be



this level

local breed cattle fattening an

d dairy, local sheep and goat

production will be implement

ed at urban, pre urban and bes

t developed

kebele area. Selection of the a

rea considered temperature,








addition pure and





slope








ha/year DMY can be




e. 9 ton ha/year DMY can be produced.

Fertilizer, extension services, weeding,

hay making, silage and oxen-power are

used for production. Output used for




Chibeha

production

Local variety of cutting will

be backyard, enclosure area,


this level

local breed cattle fattening an

d dairy, local sheep and goat

production will be implement

ed at urban, pre urban and bes

t developed

kebele area. Selection of the a

rea considered temperature,





ha/year DMY can be









addition pure and





slope


e. 9 ton ha/year DMY can be produced.

Fertilizer, extension services, weeding,

hay making, silage and oxen-power are

used for production. Output used for






Table 40:Hierarchal definition of livestock production (secondary LUTs)

II Livestock LUTs Low level Medium High level

1 Cattle Production

LUT1- Dairy

3-5 Cows (local zebu, Fogera,

hybrid of zebu and Fogera

breeds +, with average of 1.5-2

litre of milk production for210

days for substances and local

sell, with family labour and

small capital intense and with

no or some sort of shelter,

medicament, feed supply and

shelter. w/point, v/clinic and

market at 4-6,6-7 and 10-12Km

distance respectively + two

times vaccine and two times

treatment per year+6Kg DM

feed

It shall be conducted

with,

10-30crossbreeds

cows(50%), with

initial capital of 200

000Birr ( 10heifers)

and AI

To produce average of

10 litre of

milk/day/cow

for270days for sell

for local and distance

market

Twice vaccination and

regular treatment

2-3 family labours and

periodical professional

assistance

7.5 Kg DM feed per

day balanced diet and

with shelter, feeding

and watering troughs

W/point, v/clinic and

market at 0-4,4-4 and

8--10Km distance

respectively

It shall be conducted with,

70 and above crossbreeds

cows(75-100% crossed),

with initial capital of

5463000 Birr at all

infrastructures are available

(water, power+ clinic,

market= at 0Km for the 1st

three and0 – 150Km for

market with road access)+

shelter with feeding and

watering troughs+

To produce 15 lit of

milk/day/cow for 300 days

for commercial sell and milk

processing at the site or local

areas.


regular treatment at site

3-5 family+ haired labours

and constant professional

assistance

7.5 Kg DM feed per day

(formulated ration) from

industrial by products (at 0-

100Km for industrial by-

products) and hay sources.

Fattening 1-5 oxen (local zebu, Fogera,

hybrid of zebu and Fogera

breeds, to produce 285 Kg live

weight of locally fattened oxen

with 90 days of weight

increment for local sell, with

family labour and small capital

intense and with some sort of

shelter, one at a time treatment

and vaccine, with local feed

supply ( crop residue +local

brewery by products like Brint=

6Kg /day.

60 (per 3 cycle) local

best oxen with initial

capital of Birr 150000

(20 oxen), with 435

Kg live weight of

fattened oxen per day

for 90 days, for

commercial sell at

local and distance

market.


regular treatment

2-3 family labours and

periodical professional

assistance

6Kg DM formulated

ration per day and

with shelter, feeding

and watering troughs

180 and above (per 3 cycle)

crossbreeds cows(local best

+75-100% crossed), with

initial capital of

580000(80oxen) Birr at all

infrastructures are available

(water, power+ clinic

market= at 0Km for the 1st

three and0 – 150Km for

market with road access)+

shelter with feeding and

watering troughs+

To produce 505Kg body

Wight day/oxen at 90 days

for commercial sell and meat

processing at the site or local

areas.


regular treatment at site

3-5 family+ haired labours

and constant professional

assistance

6Kg DM feed per day

(formulated ration) from

industrial by products (at 0-

100Km for industrial by-

products) and hay sources.

2 Sheep LUT2 6 -12( 1male to 6 female) sheep 20-30sheep (2 male Sheep production with high



Production

with local best breeds, to

produce 20 lambs per year for

house consumption and sell at

local market(0-12Km)

With control grazing+ minerals,

crop residues, 0.5 hay and local

residue (brewery, food left

over) supplementation and

shelter at 12000 Birr initial

capital and 0.25manday

Health service and water points

at Kebele (4-6Km) and 6-7

respectively.

+28) with local best

breeds, to produce

50- lambs per year for

house consumption

and sell at local and

distance market(8-

10Km)

With control grazing+

minerals, crop

residues, hay+

industrial by products

(0.75)

supplementation

brewery, food left

over), and shelter; at

Birr 25000 (20 sheep)

initial capital and

twice vaccine and

regular treatment+

with 0.5 man day/ and

professional

assistances+ Vet clinic

and water Points0-

4Km+0-50Km for

processed feed.

numbers of sheep(>100

sheep at Guna and Sekela

with local best breeds,

Washera crossed with local

breeds + improved

(Derper)to produce 180

lambs per year for

commercial sell at local and

distance markets(0-150Km).


minerals+ hay+ industrial

(1kg) by products

supplementation and shelter;

at Birr 120000 (100 sheep)

initial capital and three times

vaccine and regular

treatment+ with 3 man days/

and professional assistances

Water points at + v clinic

(0Km)+ shelter+ improving

natural grazing lands with

over sowing + manure

application. Feed source 0-

100Km

Fattening 5-10sheep(M) with local best

breeds, to produce 40 Kg live

weight days sell at local

market(0-10Km),With control

grazing+ minerals, crop

residues, hay supplementation

and shelter at 9000 Birr initial

capital and 0.25 man day.

Health service and water points

at Kebele(0-5Km

30-50sheep(M) with

local best breeds, to

produce 50 Kg live

weight of fattened

sheep for sell at local

and distance market(0-

3Km)


minerals(0-3Km),

crop residues, hay+


supplementation

(0.5kg /day/sheep) and

or with feedlot system;

shelter; at Birr 34 000

(30 sheep) initial

capital and twice

vaccine and regular

treatment+ with 0.5

man day/ and

professional

assistances Health

service and water

points and v clinic (0-

3Km)

Sheep fattening with high

numbers of sheep(>70

sheep at urban and pre urban

areas with local best breeds,

Washera crossed with local

breeds and improved

Southern African breeds to

51-70Kg live weigh of body

weight 90 days commercial

sell at local and distance

markets(0Km).

Feedlot feeding system (1kg

concentrated and 0.25 kg

hay) ; with initial capital of

Birr 70 000 (70 sheep)

initial capital and three times

vaccine and regular

treatment+ with 3 man days/

and professional assistances

Water points (Km)+ shelter+

vet clinic(0Km)+ market0-

100Km (+ feed sources with

0-150 Km for market and

feed sources

3 LUT Goats

Production

6-12goats(( 1male to 6 female)

with local best breeds, to

produce 15 kids per year for

house consumption and sell at

local market(0-12)

With control browsing+

minerals, crop residues, hay

20-30 goats(2-3M+18-

27M) with local best

breeds+ improved-

South Africa

type(50% blood

levels), to produce

18- lambs per year for



supplementation and shelter at

10000 Birr initial capital(10

goats) and 0.25manday; V water

+clinic =4-6 and 6-7 Km

respectively

house consumption

and sell at local and

distance market(8-10)


minerals, crop

residues, hay+


supplementation(0.5kg

concentrate per day

per sheep) and shelter;

at Birr 25000 (20

goats) initial capital

and twice vaccine and

regular treatment+


professional

assistances

V clinic+ water=0-

4Km+0-50Km for

processed feed.

Fattening 5-10 goats(1 male to 6 female

ratio) with local best breeds, to

30Kg live weight of fattened

goats to sell at local market,

With control browsing+

minerals, crop residues, hay

supplementation and shelter at

8000 Birr initial

capital(10Goats) and 0.25 man

day.

20-40sheep(M) with

local best breeds, to

produce 40-60Kg

body weight of sheep

for sell at local and


With control

browsing+ minerals,

crop residues, hay+


supplementation (0.5

kg/day/sheep) and or

with feedlot system;

shelter; at Birr 20,000

(30 goats) initial

capital and twice

vaccine and regular

treatment+ with 0.5

man day/ and

professional

assistances; with feed

source distances of0-

50KM at 0-4Km for

water and clinic site

4 Poultry

Egg Production

(Layers)

6-12pullets and cock(1-

2M+18F) with local best breeds,

and hybrids to produce 120

Eggs/hen/year for house

consumption (with local best

breed, tilile, mecha, melo

hamusit, etc)feed sieving left

over + food left over) and sell at

local market (0-10Km) With

control browsing+ minerals,

crop residues, and shelter at

1800 Birr initial capital(10

poultry) and

0.05manday; V clinic+

20-50 pullets and

cockerels with local

best breeds+ improved

(100%)WLH to

produce average 140

eggs per hen per year

for sell at local and


With control feeding+

minerals, crop

residues +industrial by

products

supplementation (70

gram

It shall be done with>100

chicken with 100% WLH

breeds to produce 200eggs

from each pullets per year

for commercial sells at

distance market(0-50Km)

With feedlot system (using

formulating ration+ 90gram

concentrate/day/hen) +

water+ power+ vet clinic at

0Km. With 1man day

With initial capital of Birr

15,000 (100Pullets)



water=0Km+0-10Km for

processed feed

concentrate/day/hen)

+ minerals+ pure

water and shelter; at

Birr 7000 (50 pullets

and cockerels) initial

capital and vaccine

and regular treatment+


professional

assistances

V clinic+

water=0Km+ 0-30Km

for processed feed

Meat

production(Broilers)

20-40 Young Cocks(M) with

local best breeds,+ hybrids to

grow 1.8Kg live weight matured

cocks with 65 days for sell at

local market(0-10Km), With

control feeding+ minerals, crop

residues, supplementation (with

local best breed, tilile, mecha,

melo hamusit, etc)feed sieving

left over + food left over)and

shelter at 700.00 Birr initial

capital(40day old chicken) and

0.025 man day, + water+

power+ vet clinic at 0Km.+ 0-

10 Km for processed feed.

50-100day old

chicks(M) with

improved(RLR)

breeds to produce

2Kg live weight at

55days for sell at

local and distance

market(0-5Km)

With control feeding+

minerals, crop

residues, hay+


supplementation(90

gram/day hen) and or

with feedlot system;

shelter; at Birr 6000

(100 day old chicks)

initial capital and

vaccine and regular

treatment+ with 1 man

day/ and professional

assistances; + water+

power+ vet clinic at

0Km.

with feed source

distances of 0-60KM

With 200 and more day old

chicks with 100% RIR

breeds to produce 2Kg live

weight cockerels for meat

and to sell at local and

distance market (0Km) and

for meat processors; With

feedlot system (using

formulating ration=100gram

/day/hen) + water+ power+

vet clinic at 0Km+ with 2

men day.. With initial

capitals of Birr12000 and

with feed source distances of

0-80Km.

5 Apiculture Honey

and wax Production

With 5 traditional and 2

transitional bee hives with local

bee types to produce

average honey of 7Kg/hive/Year

to sell at local market(0-

20Km).at 0-10Km bee forage

plants availability

With initial capital of 3000 birr(

7 bee hives)+ 1/8manday

With 50

(25transitional +25

modern bee hives)

with local bee types to

produce 18kg of

honey/hive/year for

commercial sell at 0-

5Km market and with

bee forage plants

availability (at 10-

10Km) and with initial

capital of 25000 birr

for 25 bee hives.

With 1/8 man day

With 100 and more modern

bee hives with local bee

types to produce 25kg of

honey/ hive/year for

commercial sell at 0-3Km

market and with bee forage

plants availability (at 0-

10Km) and with initial

capital of 70000 birr for100

modern bee hives. With ¼

man day.



4.4 Land Use Requirements for Relected LUTs

The following bio-physical (Temperature range, altitude range, moisture availability, vegetation types or

cover types/uses, slope, soil type) and infrastructural (access to water, market and veterinary services)

were rated to evaluate the suitability of the improved forage and pasture land for cattle, sheep, goat

production although at the end, moisture availability, vegetation types or cover types, type of soil and

slope were used for the biophysical resource assessment.

The main structure of the land suitability classification was based on that developed by the Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO) but was modified to suit the local condition and the perceptions of the

sub-basin farmers, experts and local governments regarding land suitability evaluation for livestock

production in the sub-basin. Accordingly, 3 classes of suitable (Highly suitable (S1), moderately suitable

(S2) and marginally suitable (S3)) and currently not suitable (N1) were used for the land evaluation

processes.

Access to veterinary service, market services and water source were also included in the analysis. The

main reasons for the choice of these land qualities are based on the FAO guideline for extensive grazing

land evaluation (FAO, 1991) and the perceptions of the rural communities particularly those used to

evaluate the suitability of the pasture land and improved forage for different livestock species.

Furthermore, these land qualities are widely documented in the scientific literature and have been used by

different international and national organizations for forage crops suitability evaluation for livestock

production (cattle, sheep, goat and apiculture). The detail land quality rating table on proposed LUTs

indicated under land utilization types descriptions and their environmental requirements setting document.



5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

Livestock and feed resources are deeply assessed based on the pre set data collection and analyses

methods in Tana Development Corridor for the land use planning purposes. As a result,

huge livestock population(2,008,197TLUs), best local breeds like, Fogera cattle, Washera sheep, Tilili, Me

cha, Farata and Melo-Hmusit poultry, best local feed resources like grass lands, bush and shrub lands,

huge crop residues, adopted improved forage SPPs (2,996,546.24 ton of DM) are identified as best

potentials. Likewise, availability of suitable ACZs, water resources, training, research, multiplication and

distribution centres, are considered as best opportunities to enhance the sub-basin livestock development.

On the other way round,

Poor feed supply both in quantity and qualities (45.54% annual feed deficit) production

requirement basis.

Traditional husbandry system (traditional breeding, grazing, sheltering, and marketing...)

High disease prevalence and low health services provision



Low attention given to the sub-sector development by respective bodies.

Poor chemical applications for pesticides are identified as major constraints that hindered the

sub-basin livestock development.

After looking into account all these issues, 5 LUTs for livestock and 13 LUTs for feed resources are

identified and described. Furthermore, LURs for each LUT are identified and characterized at different

lives of management based on FAO (1976) guideline.

Subsequently, it can be concluded that the livestock and feed resources potentials and pertinent issues are

well addressed, reliable information are provided and then the land evaluation for livestock and feed

resources are able to be conducted properly that help and satisfy the client for further integrated livestock

and feed resources development efforts in the study area.

5.2 Recommendation

As it is indicated at different parts of the document, the sub-basin has got good potentials and

opportunities of livestock and feed resources. Nonetheless, the livestock and feed resources developments

are constraint with different constraints at different levels: So that; to maximize the resources development

and meet the demands of the community from the sub sector; the following recommendations are

forwarded;



i. Policy and Strategic issues Under the policy and strategy assessment, it is clearly identified, that not yet any livestock concerned

policy is formulated and issued and implemented. As a result, the sub sector development is hindered with

various constraints. So, to make an enabling environment for the sub sector development in the sub-basin;

A. Livestock sector development concerned policies that include all respective issues like breeding,

grazing system, marketing etc. shall be prepared, adopted and implemented at the regional level.

B. The livestock development master plan drafted at the national level shall be amended, updated and

contextualized with the regional objective realities and implemented.

ii. Meat and dairy development

Meat shall be produced from cattle, shoats and poultry in the sub-basin. So to enhance, the

development of these animals;

Breeds development issues

Perform the regional livestock characterization, selection, nucleus formation, breed improvements,

capacity building for technical assistances, provisions of inputs, etc by the regional government and/or

the private sector shall improve the livestock sector development in the sub-basin.

A. Package formulation for Melo-hamusit, Mecha and Tilili poultry breeds development and

protection shall improve the sub-sector development in the sub-basin.

B. Research on the Wetet Abay and Kurbah Kebele cattle performances shall improve the milk

production and community benefits in the sub–basin.

C. In accompany with control gazing implementation, local bull, Doe, Buck stations shall be

considered to assure, semen provision at the right time of breeding

D. In accompany with synchronization and/or improving the local breeds with exotic breeds,

first, sustainable feed supplementation system and health care services availability and

accessibility shall be put as a pre requests

Feed resource development

Natural pasture land development strategy Communal grass land conservation

Communal grass land development (over sowing, fertilizer application manure

application, irrigation.)

Gully treatment and encroachments controlling

Irrigation through flooding

Well developed control grazing implementation strategy

Special strategy development to stop free grazing and implement control grazing that shall address for:



Particular areas (at large bush and shrub areas; not only zero grazing but also rotational or

control grazing...shall be seen.)

Breeding strategy to provide services at the time of demand (all may not have bull, duck )

To control inbreeding ( if use their own only)

Type of livestock (goats, equines )

Labour ( to transport feed and waters, to feed and water animals, )

Effective feed development strategies

Especial extension strategies developments for control grazing

All parties shall have common awareness and commitment to wards to control grazing

implementation (Training, centres such as universities, research centres, politicians,

Administrators, community leaders...) which are too essential to implement and realised the

theoretical aspects are too essential

Improved forge development with different development strategies and selected improved SPPs

Application of different treatment to improve the quality and palatability of the huge

crop residue resources

Land levelling,

Neutralization

Fertilizer application

iii. Poultry production

iv. Apiculture production

v. Infrastructural provisions

Vet clinic, market places, roads, water points are essential infrastructural requirements for livestock

development. So, for the development of these infrastructural due attentions shall be given by the

respective bodies especially any water development structures shall be designed with livestock water

drinking troughs to provide the annual water requirements of 26,473,477M3.

Marketing and markets

Market information systems

Marketing Facilities

Safe live animals’ transportation rules and systems

Developing quality standards and crate awareness to start livestock merchandised based on live

weight of animals

vi. Technology generation and adoption.



Breeds, packages, feeding, watering, transporting, processing (Honey, Milk .etc.) technologies shall be

generated and /or adopted with the respect of the then capacity, local potentials ( like breeds) and

demand as well as the regional concerned

vii. Extension Provisions

Most of the mentioned constraints and forwarded recommendations are believed to be solved and realised

with sustainable and functional extension systems application accompanied with well linked efforts of

training and research institutions available in and around the sub-basin. So cognizing all these facts all

respective bodies shall do especial efforts to realise these and bring the practical results.



6 REFERENCES

Abye Kindie (2001). Wetlands Distribution in the Amhara Region, their importance and current threats. In the

proceeding of the Wetland Awareness and Activity Identification Workshop in the Amhara Region.

Alemayehu, Mengistu, 1997. Conservation-Based forage development in Ethiopia. Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.

CSA (2007-2011), Agricultural survey report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA,2013. Livestock and livestock characteristics on private peasant holdings, volumeII, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Development master Plan Study Phase One Report_ Data Collected and analysis (Socio_ Economy part), 2007.

Ethiopia Addis Ababa.

ESGPIP, 2008. Rangeland resource monitoring and vegetation condition scoring. Technical bulletin No.26.Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa.

FAO (1981). Tropical forest resource assessment project: Forest resource of tropical Africa. II country briefs. Rome,

Italy.

FAO, 1983, Guideline for extensive grazing land, Rom ; Italy

FAO, 1976. A frame work for land evaluation, Rom ; Italy

FAO , 1988. Farm Structure in tropical climate. Italy, Rome

FAO, 1991. Guidelines land evaluation for extensive grazing. Soil resources, management and conservation service,

Italy, rome.

FAO, (1993). Guidelines for land-use planning .Italy, Rome

FAO, (1993). Agro-Ecological Land Resources Assessment for Agricultural Development Planning

a Case Study of Kenya; Resources Data Base and Land Productivity Main Report,

FAO, 1996, Guideline for land use planning, Rom ; Italy

FAO (2002), Crop and Feed Supply Assessment Mission to Errtrea; World Food program.

FAO, (2006). Guideline for Land uses planning. Italy, Rome; Reprinted.

GAEZ, 2012. Global Agro-Ecological Zones, Definitions

GEF (2009), Global Environmental Facility Baseline information on livestock Production and Grazing Land

Halima,(2007).Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal, Wildlife

and Grassland Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR (PhD)

IFAD/EPLAUA Project Planning Team. 2007. Amhara National Regional State Community-based Integrated

Natural Resources Management in Lake Tana Watershed: On Livestock Production/Range Management (Final):

Baseline Information. Ethiopia, Bahir-Dar.

Kassam, A.H. H.T. van Velthuizen, G.W. Fischer and M.M. Shah, 1991. agro-ecological land resources assessment

for agricultural development planning a case study of Kenya resources data base and land productivity main report.

ISBN 92-5103303-X, Kenya.

Kayouli, C. 1996. The role of feeding system based on cereal residues in integrated farming systems in Sub-Saharan

Africa. http://ces.iisc./ ernet.in/hpg/envis/livdoc1121.html.

Kerealem, etal , 2009. Constraints and prospects for apiculture research and development in Amhara region,

Ethiopia.

Pastoral Areas Development Study (PADS). Pastoral Areas Development Plan (PADP), General executive summary.

2004. Ministry of Agricultyre and Rural Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 58p.

http://ces.iisc./



SCI, (2006). Livestock Potential Report. Bahir Dar. Amhara

United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2007. Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI)

strategy, Ethiopia.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Boer goat, 2014. On line with April 25;2014;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_goat

Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project, (2002). Report on Natural Grazing Lands and Livestock

Feed Resources October, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Zinash, S. and Seyoum, B.,1991. Utilization of feed resources and feeding systems in the central zone of

Ethiopia.Proceedings of the Third National livestock improvement conference, Addis Ababa,Ethiopia.pp.129-132

http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boer_goat



7 ANNEXES

7.1 Summary of Collected Activities for Both Livestock Production and

Feed Resources

Summary of major activities surveyed at the detail levels

Sources ADSWE (2013)

Source: Offices of Woreda Agricultural (20013)

S

No

Activities Unit performed Remarks Methods and Soft ware’s shall be

implemented to analyse the detail result

1 observations No 333 Points at grassland,

wetland, bush /shrub

lands. Forest lands,

cultivated land and built

up areas and other

practices

Plant composition will be analysed using

Excel and GIS; Net DM estimation shall be

done using climatic, soli and cover modifiers,

stoking rate, carrying capacity shall be

calculated.

2 Livestock

body condition

assessment

No 127 Mostly at grassland Livestock body condition assessment shall be

analysed using Excel sheet and Digital

camera photos that taken in the zoom in and

out methods

3 Market

assessment

No 9 Woreda and/or Zone

centres

Market assessment shall be analysed using

Excel sheet

4 Woreda FGD No 14 At all Woredas Woreda FGD assessment shall be analysed

using Excel sheet

5 Kebele FGD No 29 2 Kebeles at each

Woredas

Kebele assessment shall be analysed using

Excel sheet

6 Key Informant

interview

No 51 Mostly, farmers, and

some experts

Key informant assessment shall be analysed

using Excel sheet

7 Infrastructure

data collection

No 22 At all Woredas Institutions data assessment shall be analysed

using Excel sheet and GIS to locate spatially

8 Data collection

at HH level

No 4002 At sampled kebeles It can be analysed using SPSS



7.2 Requirement Table for Primary and Secondary LUTs

Summary of Forage and Livestock Production LUTs and Requirements for Interim Report S.

N

LUTs Inputs Required Factors Affecting the LUTs

1 Primary LUTs

1.1 Sedentary pasture

improved production

land

Improved forge seeds, fertilizer,

labour and credit

Climatic factors such as (temperature, rainfall,

LGP,) slope, and soil

1.2 Irrigated pasture

production land

Improved Forage seeds and

cutting, fertilizer, irrigable land,

labour and farm implements

Temperature, Water availability, slope, soil,

LGP, SPPs

1.3 Closure area pasture

production land

Improved forge seeds, seed lings,

labour, and farm implements

Climatic factors such as (temperature, rainfall,

LGP,) slope, and soil

1.4 Crop -Forage

combined production

land

Improved forge seeds seed lings

and cuts, credit and labour.

Rain fall, temperature, LGP, slope and soil.

2 Secondary LUTs

2.1 Small scale cattle

production Types

Local best breed, labour, extension

services

Sufficient feed, suitable climatic conditions

(rain fall, temperature), accessible health

services, and market and water points to be

more productive.

2.2 Medium and Large

scale Dairy Production

Types

Improved heifers, AI services,

improved forge seeds, seedlings

cuts and land for improved forge

production and training

Availability of feed, climatic factors like

temperate, rain fall, altitudes, and

infrastructural factors like accessibility to

health service, water and market points.

2.3 Medium and large

scale fattening

production types

Credits, local and or/ improved

bulls or oxen. Improved forge

seeds, seedlings cuts and land for

improved forge production and

training

Availability of feed, climatic factors like

temperate, rain fall, altitudes, and

infrastructural factors like accessibility to

health service, water and market points.

2.4 Sheep production

Improved forge, improved breed,

credit, training, mineral

supplements and labour

Climatic factors (temperature, rain fall.)

altitude, feed availability and infrastructural

factors like water, market and health services.

2.5. Sheep fattening

Better improved breed, improved

forge seeds, cuts, seedlings, credit,

training, mineral supplements,

labour, credit and industrial by

products



factors like water, market and health services.

2.6 a. Goats production Better local and improved breeds,

credit and labour



factors like water, market and health services

2.7 Poultry production

Processed feed, credit, and land

with infrastructures, improved

breeds and medicament

Climatic factors like temperature, rain fall,

market, water, power, Power and health service

availability.



S.

N

LUTs Inputs Required Factors Affecting the LUTs

2.8 Apiculture Modern beehives; honey

processing, wax moulding and

queen excluder, bee colonies,

professionals and labour.

Feed availability, temperature, rainfall, market

and water points.



7.3 Detail Field Observation Data in Both Four Water Shad

Data collected sites and its description in Gilgel Abay and Gumara water shad

S

No Date Zone Woreda Kebele LC_Type X Y Z ACZ

Slo

pe

1 22/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Chalma GrassL 131304 3703748 2080 Mo_Tep 5--8

2 22/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Chalma CultiL 370375 1313092 2086 Mo_Tep 5--8

3 22/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Kuhar BushL 359110 1314288 1896 Mo_Tep

8--

15

4 22/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Kuhar CultiL 359264 1314803 1872 Mo_Tep

8--

15

5 23/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Kuhar GrassL 354725 1310127 1799 Mo_Tep 5--8

6 23/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Shina CultiL 351537 1311650 1788 Mo_Tep 2--5

7 23/04/006

S/God

ar Fogera Shina GrassL 352187 1311860 1794 Mo_Tep 2--5

8 24/04/007

S/God

ar Dera Jigina

Builtup

area 350719 1309784 1795 Mo_Tep 2--6

9 24/04/005

S/God

ar Fogera Wagettera GrassL 342439 1315729 1786 Mo_Tep 2--4

10 26/04/006

S/God

ar Farta Soras GrassL 410067 1295550 3655 mcd 2--8

11 26/04/006

S/God

ar Farta Soras CultiL 409848 1296074 3546 mcd

8--

15

12 26/04/006

S/God

ar Farta Soras ForestL 409403 1296335 3461 mcd

15-

30

13 01/05/006

S/God

ar Dera

Gedam

Geregera ForestL 355173 1302712 1858

Sub

humid T

8--

15

14 01/05/006

S/God

ar Dera

Gedam

Geregera CultiL 354929 1303129 1838

Sub

humid T 5--8

15 02/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Maynet ForestL 398886 1297446 2574

Moist

coll 5--8

16 02/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Maynet GrassL 400702 1298697 2831

Moist

coll 5--9

17 02/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Maynet CultiL 400968 1298685 2835

Moist

coll

5--

10

18 03/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Werkien BushaL 388852 1304901 2394 Mo_Tep

8--

15

19 05/05/006

S/God

ar Dera Korata Wet_land 332566 1302146 1790 Mo_Tep 0--5

20 05/05/006

S/God

ar Dera Korata ForestL 334883 1299737 1860 Mo_Tep

15--

30

21 05/05/007

S/God

ar Dera Korata Wet_land 331573 1300138 1795 Mo_Tep 0--5

22 06/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Kanat GrassL 396515 1304952 2635

MO_Co

l 2--5

23 06/05/006

S/God

ar Farta Kanat CultiL 398344 1038430 2639

MO_Co

l 5--8

24 07/05/006

S/God

ar Farta

Huletu

Simna ForestL 394769 1297491 2657

Sub

humid c

15--

30

25 07/05/006

S/God

ar Farta

Huletu

Simna BushL 396443 1296943 2796

Sub

humid c

8--

15

26 07/05/006

S/God

ar Estie Amjaye CultiL 396571 1292653 2615

Sub

humid c

8--

15



27 07/05/006

S/God

ar Estie Amjaye GrassL 396781 1293990 2687

Sub

humid c 2--5

28 07/05/006

S/God

ar Estie Lewaye

Builtup

area 399078 1295466 2724

Sub

humid c 5--9

29 08/05/006

S/God

ar Fwgera Aba Gunda GrassL 367441 1304515 1889 Mo_Tep 0--2

30 08/05/006

S/God

ar Fwgera Menguzer CultiL 364099 1305994 1887 Mo_Tep 0--2

31 09/05/006

S/God

ar Dera Wonchet Bush-Land 338440 1305102 1835 Mo_Tep

8--

15

32 09/05/006

S/God

ar Dera Mitsilee CultiL 338035 1305422 1810 Mo_Tep 2--5

33 09/05/006

S/God

ar Dera Mitsilee CultiL 338849 1308778 1796 Mo_Tep 2--5

34 10/5/2006

S/God

ar Dera Jigina CultiL 348781 1312271 1795 Mo_Tep 0-2

35 10/5/2006

S/God

ar Dera Zara

Buss

GrassL 340511 1306517 1837 Mo_Tep

8--

15

36 10/6/2006

S/God

ar Dera Zara

Buss

GrassL 350623 1309877 1796 Mo_Tep 0--2

37 12/5/2006

S/God

ar Dera Wonchet CultiL 337056 1296936 1820 Mo_Tep

8--

15

38 12/5/2006

S/God

ar Dera Wonchet ForestL 341936 1300836 1840 Mo_Tep 2--5

39 13/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Gedam

Geregera CultiL 352694 1299230 2036 SHT 5--8

40 13/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Gedam

Geregera CultiL 348162 1299436 1947

MO-

Tep

8--

15

41 14/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Tebabari

and

Arbaetu CultiL 356776 1295530 2197

MO-

Tep

0--

45

42 14/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Tebabari

and

Arbaetu ForestL 352336 1265252 2043

MO-

Tep

8--

15

43 14/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera Gohha ForestL 352182 1287329 2319

MO-

Tep

8--

15

44 15/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Zara and

Mitseli Shurb_L 342771 1306280 1880

MO-

Tep

15--

60

45 15/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/Zuria Robit Bata CultiL 331423 1288446 1949

MO-

Tep

8--

15

46 15/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/Zuria Robit Bata GrassL 332966 1291912 1842

MO-

Tep 5--8

47 15/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/Zuria Gombat GrassL 336171 1296342 1816

MO-

Tep 2--5

48 19/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/L Zone Zenzelema

Plantation

forest 329852 1287208 1801

MO-

Tep 0--2

49 19/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/L Zone Zenzelema Quary Site 330218 186396 1855

MO-

Tep

8--

15

50 20/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera Shimie

Grss_Bish

La 365076 1286072 2275

MO-

Tep

15-

30

51 20/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Emashenko

ro CultiL 350028 1296669 2002

MO-

Tep 5--8

52 21/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/Zuria Laguna BushL 338393 1287705 2238

MO-

Tep

30-

45

53 21/05/2006

W/Go

jam B/Zuria Laguna CultiL 340211 1287550 2192

MO-

Tep 5--8

54 22/05/2006 S/God Dera Kulala GrassL 338807 1294388 1870 MO- 2--5



ar Tep

55 22/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera Kulala CultiL 338045 1294552 1861

MO-

Tep 5--8

56 23/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Gelawdewo

s ForestL 370495 1287135 2476

Moist

coll

15--

30

57 23/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera

Gelawdewo

s CultiL 373179 1286330 2378

Moist

coll

8--

15

58 27/05/2006

S/God

ar Dera Gibtsawit GrassL 346919 1299765 1918

MO-

Cool 2--5

59 28/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Jib Asra CultiL 384662 1280681 2641

MO-

Cool

45-

60

60 28/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Jib Asra Bush la 385222 1281305 2576

MO.Tep

id

45-

60

61 28/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Jib Asra GrassL 386294 1283799 2426

MO.Tep

id 2--5

62 28/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie

Shimagelie

Georgis CultiL 387758 1285820 2460

MO.Tep

id 2--5

63 29/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Licha Arida

Licha

ForestL 377126 1288943 2420

MO.Tep

id

15-

30

64 29/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Licha Arida

LichaGrass

L 377156 1288266 2311

MO.Tep

id 2--5

65 29/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie

Shimagile

Georgis Bush Land 387672 1286508 2495

MO.Tep

id

8--

15

66 29/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie

Gind

Atemem

Church

ForestLan 382080 1288973 2490

MO.Tep

id

30-

45

67 30/05/2006

S/God

ar Estie Lewaye

Plantation

forest 399772 1295380 2726

MO-

Cool

15-

30

68 30/05/2008

S/God

ar Estie Madoka

Woolkifit-

GrasL 395955 1292480 2651

MO-

Cool 2--5

69 06/06/006

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Yenesa Grass land 314209 1270823 1992

MO_Te

pid 2--5

70 7/6/2006

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Urra ForestL 318540 1263165 1873

MO_Te

pid

15-

30

71 7/6/2006

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Yiganda ForestL 318690 1293938 1984

MO_Te

pid

15-

30

72 7/6/2006

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Yiganda WeteLand 316154 1294289 1792

MO_Te

pid 0-2

73 7/6/2006

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Wonjetta

Cultivated

Cul 311997 1285370 1848

MO_Te

pid 2--5

74 11/06/200

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Wonjetta

Cultivated

Cul 311966 1288123 1838

MO_Te

pid 2--5

75 11/06/202

B/L/Z

one Bahir Dar Woramit Grass land 314529 1285174 1817

MO_Te

pid 2--5

76 06/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Bachima

Cultivated

Cul 305142 1265833 1998

MO_Te

pid 2--5

77 06/06/007

W/Go

jam Mecha Bachima Shurb land 309606 1266631 2012

MO_Te

pid 5--8

78 8/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Lat Amba WeteLand 302128 1294845 1803

MO_Te

pid 0-2

79 8/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Lat Amba

Cultivated

Cul 302329 1292424 1810

MO_Te

pid 2--5

80 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Sekelett Grass land 307973 1308429 1792

MO_Te

pid 0--2

81 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Sekelett

Cultivated

Cul 308101 1307998 1797

MO_Te

pid 2--5

82 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Sekelett WeteLand 306695 1306695 1793

MO_Te

pid 0--2



83 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Sekelett BusL 309663 1205218 1811

MO_Te

pid 2--5

84 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Debranta WeteLand 311487 1300945 1834

MO_Te

pid 0--2

85 10/06/006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Debranta

Cultivated

Cul 311324 1301287 1838

MO_Te

pid 2--5

86 11/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Wogelsa Shurb land 310627 1284788 1874

MO_Te

pid

45-

60

87 11/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Wogelsa

Cultivated

Cul 310625 1284931 1866

MO_Te

pid 2--5

88 11/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Lat Amba BusL 310625 1284931 1866

MO_Te

pid 2--5

89 11/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria

Dahena

Sostu WeteLand 298065 1288970 1812

MO_Te

pid 0-2

90 11/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria

Dahena

Sostu

Cultivated

Cul 296979 1288564 1828

MO_Te

pid 0-2

91 13/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Yinesa BusL 311753 1279303 1862

MO_Te

pid 2--5

92 13/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Yibaba

Cultivated

Cul 312373 1279438 1853

MO_Te

pid 2--5

93 13/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Yibaba

Plantation

FL 314879 2240021 1884

MO_Te

pid 2--5

94 13/6/2006

W/Go

jam B/ Zuria Yiloma Grass land 310632 1272844 1923

MO_Te

pid 0--2

95 13/6/2007

W/Go

jam Mecha 8Kebeles

Koga

Irrigation L 294677 1270876 1913

MO_Te

pid 0--2

96 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Abromenor

e Shurb land 309463 1242874 2258

MO_Te

pid

30-

45

97 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Abromenor

e

Cultivated

Cul 306917 1245419 2297

MO_Te

pid

8--

15

98 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Felege

Hiote BusL 305847 1247583 2204

MO_Te

pid

15-

30

99 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha Rim Grass land 304711 1251586 2042

MO_Te

pid 0--2

10

0 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha Rim

Cultivated

Cul 301545

1249803

2 2119

MO_Te

pid 0--2

10

1 14/06/2006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Meder_Gen

et

Cultivated

Cul 304626 1252271 2052

MO_Te

pid 0--2

10

2 18/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Teklie Grass land 299589 1234680 2348

Sub -

MoT 5--8

10

3 18/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Teklie

Cultivated

Cul 299055 1234213 2309

Sub -

MoT 2--5

10

4 18/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Teklie ForestL 299024 1235724 2412

Sub -

MoT

15-

30

10

5 18/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Teklie

Closure

area 298402 1235961 2370

Sub -

MoT

8--

15

10

6 18/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Addis Alem

Cultivated

Cul 289546 1241450 2170

MO_Te

pid 2--5

10

7 19/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Midregent

Cultivated

Cul 310008 1252374 2239

MO_Te

pid

15-

30

10

8 19/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Midregent Grass land 308561 1253963 2131

MO_Te

pid

8--

15

10

9 19/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha Kurt-Bahir WeteLand 306096 1257199 2036

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11

0 19/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Enashnefale

n

Cultivated

Cul 301358 1260477 2022

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11 21/06/2006 W/Go Mecha Bachima Grass land 303983 1265261 2000 MO_Te 2--5



1 jam pid

11

2 24/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha B/Chora ForestL 295407 1249087 2041

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11

3 24/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Lehulum

selam

Cultivated

Cul 3004002 1247410 2099

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11

4 24/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

3Kebeles

A/A,B/Ch,

Dagi Grass land 295924 1244011 2020

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11

5 24/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Lehulum

selam

Cultivated

Cul 298111 1243125 2016

MO_Te

pid 2--2

11

6 25/06/006

W/Go


MO_Te

pid

45--

60

11

7 25/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Enashnefale

n Grass land 304820 1266160 2034

MO_Te

pid 0--2

11

8 25/06/006

W/Go


MO_Te

pid 5--8

11

9 28/06/006

W/Go

jam Mecha

Tagel

wdefit WeteLand 288705 1262652 1936

MO_Te

pid 0--2

12

0 28/06/007

W/Go

jam Mecha

Ambo

Meda Grass land 289568 1259577 1937

MO_Te

pid 0--2

12

1 29/06/007

W/Go

jam Mecha Dagi

Built up

area 288875 1244026 2135

MO_Te

pid 2--5

12

2 29/06/008

W/Go

jam Mecha Gora Gott Shurb land 285882 1253657 1954

MO_Te

pid

8--

15

12

3 01/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Kier

Gorach GrasL 283772 1259646 1889

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

12

4 01/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Kier

Gorach CultL 281259 1257554 1920

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

12

5 2/7/2006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria BushL 278043 1257835 1960

Mo_Tep

id 5--8

12

6 2/7/2006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria ForestL 275832 1256989 2007

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

12

7 4/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria

Bush

GrassL 276643 1256194 1980

Mo_Tep

id 5--8

12

8 4/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria CultL 272999 1251344 2040

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

12

9 05/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Lalibela BushL 276638 1275304 2002

Mo_Tep

id

15--

30

13

0 05/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Kurbha GrasL 283612 1278023 1945

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

13

1 05/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria GrasL 279712 1256402 1940

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

13

2 06/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Abchikly

Zuria/Guta

Abo Wetland 272976 1257305 1989

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

13

3 08/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Ahuri

Keltafa GrasL 275047 1261989 1960

SMo_T

epid 2--5

13

4 08/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Ahuri

Keltafa GrasL 276313 1266433 1930

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

13

5 9/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Lihuda ShrubL 286052 1278299 1935

Mo_Tep

id 5--8

13

6 9/07/007

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Lihuda and

Kurbah GrasL 281082 1276082 1994

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

13

7 9/07/008

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Kurbha BushL 280357 1277943 1945

Mo_Tep

id 5--8

13

8 12/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Lalibela GrasL 275507 1273747 1937

Mo_Tep

id 0--2



13

9 12/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer

Ahuri

Keltafa GrasL 276088 1268318 1914

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

14

0 13/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Kat-Dekuli CultL 261676 1260607 2162

Mo_Tep

id

8--

15

14

1 13/07/006

W/Go

jam

South

Achefer Kat-Dekuli

Builtup

area 267621 1259462 2071

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

14

2 15/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer

Yismala

Zuria GrasL 271486 1282427 2065

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

14

3 15/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer

Yismala

Zuria ShrubL 274107 1280223 2055

Mo_Tep

id

8--

15

14

4 15/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer

Leben

Zuria CultL CultL 274475 1292546 2031

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

14

5 15/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer Kulabaka

Builtup

area 274721 1286754 2200

Mo_Tep

id 5--8

14

6 18/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer

Barder

Qilaje GrasL 291634 1298804 1808

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

14

7 18/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer

Barder

Qilaje,Stim

ut,Legdia ShrubL 291708 1298804 1810

Mo_Tep

id

8--

15

14

8 18/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer Legdiya Wetland 292686 1298163 1800

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

14

9 18/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer Estumit CultL 288535 1207008 1813

Mo_Tep

id 2--5

15

0 18/07/006

W/Go

jam

North

Achefer Legdiya GrasL 287497 1293533 1825

Mo_Tep

id 0--2

15

1 19/07/2006 Awi Dangila Girargie GrasL 267467

1247392

2 2113 Sht 0--2

15

2 19/07/2006 Awi Dangila ZeeGuada GrasL 269559 1247665 2095 Sht 2--5

15

3 20/07/006 Awi Dangila Gayita CultL 268799 1237154 2231 Sht 0--2

15

4 22/07/006 Awi

Fageeta

Lecoma Gafera GrasL 270641 1223686 2546 Shc 5--8

15

5 22/07/006 Awi

Fageeta

Lecoma

Azmach

Gola GrasL 268570 1227860 2414 Sht 5--8

15

6 23/07/2006 Awi

Fageeta

Lecoma Ashwa afri CultL 123570 2669245 2287 Sht 2--5

15

7 23/07/2006 Awi Dangila Gumbria ShrubL 266392 1238767 2205 Sht 5--8

15

8 23/07/2006 Awi Dangila

ButaKurdes

ha CultL 266256 1240229 2165 Sht 0--2

15

9 23/07/2006

W/Go

jam Sekala Absken CultL 312773 1222247 2915 Shcd >60

16

0 24/07/006

W/Go

jam Sekala Ambisi GrasL 295960 1213277 2618 Shcd 5--8

16

1 24/07/006

W/Go

jam Sekala Sekela ForestL 305516 1215250 2786 Shcd 5--8

16

2 24/07/006 Awi

Fageeta

Lecoma

Asuha

Funzi GrasL 276272 1227671 2344 Sht 0-2

16

3 24/07/006 Awi

Fageeta

Lecoma

Segla

T/Haymano

t ForestL 282920 1225772 2361 Sht

8--

15

16

4 24/07/006 Awi Banja Gurja CultL 286491 1219011 2419 Sht 2--5

16

5 24/07/008 Awi Banja Gurja GrasL 288096 1216718 2476 Sht

8--

15

16 27/07/006 Awi Fageeta Segela ForestL/ 268578 1222690 2386 Sht 0--2



6 Lecoma Dawoona Decerencia

16

7 27/07/007 Awi Dangila Zelesh GrasL 273573 1240205 2027 Sht 0--2

16

8 27/07/009 Awi Dangila Zelesh

Acacia

Woodland/

rev 262070

1244579

2 2132 Sht 5--8



Data collcted sites and its description in Megechi and Rib water shad

seri

al

no

Date ACZ Slop Major

Cover

type

Place of observation Gps reading

Zone Wored

a

Kebele Got X_cor

r

Y_cor

r

Eli

vat

ion

1 21/04/06 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta Alember Alember

town

37815

2

13185

50

19

89

2 22/04/06 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest " Farta Koledengo

se

Gomi 38569

8

13185

42

23

31

3 23/04/06 moist cool 15-30 shrub and

bush

" Farta " kona 38613

1

13172

15

23

52

4 23/04/06 moist cool 0-2 Grass land " Farta Ata Afkera 40715

1

13038

53

27

95

5 24/04/06 moist cool 15-30 Forest S/Gonder Farta Arkadede

m

41450

7

13051

76

29

90

6 24/04/06 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest S/Gonder Farta Alember

senko

Alember

saga

38321

3

13178

44

21

40

7 24/04/06 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Farta Koledengo

se

Acha

meda

38711

7

13161

98

22

99

8 24/04/06 moist cool 0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta Aba

Aregay

Adebab

ay

39744

8

13095

99

26

35

9 25/04/06 moist

tepid

0-2 Plantation

Forest

S/Gonder Farta weji

Awuramba

mizzu 37326

5

13213

21

19

06

10 26/04/06 moist

tepid

15-30 shrub and

bush

S/Gonder Farta Deba Billa 36694

8

13207

90

18

24

11 26/04/06 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Fogera Tewazeke

na

Godgua

dit

36335

1

13208

38

18

34

12 1/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Fogera woreta

zuria

menhar 35682

8

13181

54

18

00

13 2/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder Fogera Karabo Bata 35722

5

13156

27

18

30

14 2/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Fogera Abakokit Lomikol

ie

36101

3

13265

42

17

94

15 3/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Burra Amusgi

e

36284

7

13331

69

18

10

16 3/5/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 Town(cult

ivated)

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Addis

Zemen

Town 36628

7

13399

16

19

36

17 4/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 Grass land S/Gonder Farta ayvaniva 38875

5

13216

18

21

43

18 6/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 Grass land S/Gonder Farta mokshe wembi 33394

0

13599

66

30

51

19 6/5/2006 moist cool 15-30 Grass land S/Gonder Farta awuziet 40771

8

13009

12

_

20 6/5/2006 moist cool 0-2 Grass land S/Gonder farta 41474

0

13049

60

30

22

21 7/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder ebenat zeha begoy 38686

0

13356

31

19

56

22 7/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 shrub and

bush

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

berkute golla 38596

5

13387

63

20

40

23 8/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Arba

Tsegura

38585

9

13361

05

19

43

24 8/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder L/keme

kem

berkute 38372

7

13365

55

19

41

25 8/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Arba

Tsegura

37388

0

13400

43

20

00



26 8/5/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 Forest(clo

sure area)

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Estifanose Fachi(fo

rest)

37819

4

13405

40

21

14

27 8/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

shotchteha

ra

Embusg

ie

37626

6

13396

70

20

63

28 9/5/2006 moist cool 15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Taragedam kaula

yohanni

s

36548

8

13427

31

22

87

29 9/5/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Taragedam kaula

yohanni

s

36563

1

13429

92

22

84

30 10/5/206 moist

tepid

15-30 villge

(bush and

shrub)

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Addis

Zemen

Town 36542

7

13427

47

19

33

31 10/5/200

6

moist

tepid


kem

Taragedam kaula

yohanni

s

36585

8

13398

44

19

79

32 12/5/200

6

moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

wushatirse Korieb 35759

5

13383

99

19

54

33 13/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 shrub and

bush

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

wushatirse Nechim

eda

35578

6

13371

71

19

03

34 13/5/06 moist

tepid


kem

wushatirse 35629

0

13368

97

18

71

35 13/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

wushatirse 35629

0

13381

47

19

32

36 13/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

shinatsiyo

n

Agewac

h

35713

6

13266

84

17

92

37 14/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Addis

Zemen

Town 36752

6

13398

62

19

23

38 14/5/06 moist

tepid


kem

36991

3

13449

13

20

55

39 14/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Angot mentoge

ra

36426

1

13357

94

18

54

40 14/5/06 moist

tepid


kem

Angot mentoge

ra

36431

1

13354

99

18

51

41 14/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest

land

S/Gonder L/keme

kem

Taragedam washa

enderas

36356

7

13439

88

21

40

42 15/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Fogera Tihuaena

kokit

36310

3

13211

95

18

19

43 15/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Fogera woji shimb 36762

5

13199

44

18

54

44 15/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Fogera woji Dehore 37253

6

13193

02

19

53

45 15/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta senko Asiba 37407

9

13192

12

19

55

46 15/5/05 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta Alember Gibatme

da

37921

7

13182

75

20

06

47 15/5/06 sub-humid 0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta zero eight melaw 39102

7

13124

69

25

97

48 15/5/06 moist cool 0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta hiruyabare

gay

zufil 39643

8

13096

37

26

20

49 15/5/06 moist cool 15-30 Plantation

Forest

S/Gonder Farta ewabagera

t

fitana 39915

2

13081

55

26

79

50 15/5/06 moist cool 15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder Farta yewewa wado 40099

5

13087

18

26

91

51 15/5/06 moist cool 0-2 Grass land S/Gonder Farta yewewa wado 40070

9

13075

22

26

89

52 15/5/06 moist cool 0-2 Plantation S/Gonder Farta argadedem masero 40129 13085 26



Forest medir 3 17 90

53 15/5/06 moist cool 15-30 gully

rehabilitat

ion

S/Gonder Farta Tsegur

eyesus

Bahir 38803

8

13148

46

24

44


land

S/Gonder Farta minet weeyn

wuha

39952

4

12991

46

28

16

55 16/5/06 moist cool 15-30 Grass land S/Gonder Farta minet 40588

7

13011

66

29

00

56 19/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder Fogera shiwonze Baraye 35464

8

13145

13

18

11

57 20/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder ebenat zeha Abukoy 39314

9

13353

33

19

55

58 20/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

S/Gonder ebenat zeha Ambo 39430

7

13377

28

20

55

59 20/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

S/Gonder ebenat zeha Bohit 38841

0

13327

36

18

83


shrub

S/Gonder ebenat Embachik

o

gunaguna

zafe

neguse

40213

8

13348

76

25

50


land

S/Gonder ebenat Embachik

o

gunaguna

zafe

neguse

40188

3

13337

48

24

42

62 30/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder ebenat Zeha Neber

tfer

39275

5

13360

31

19

93

63 30/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

S/Gonder ebenat Zeha Neber

tfer

39244

1

13363

83

19

98

64 30/5/06 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land S/Gonder ebenat zeha shimb 39272

9

13361

32

19

83

65 30/5/06 moist

tepid

15-30 Grass land S/Gonder ebenat zeha 38833

0

13349

17

19

19

66 4/6/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Sendeba Della 35905

1

13462

59

19

46

67 4/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Sendeba Della 35942

9

13462

49

19

48

68 4/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Debesianti

kara

Giramiti

t

35150

6

13516

16

18

82

69 5/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

chihiraman

tenro

34807

0

13615

44

21

55

70 5/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 Forest

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

chihiraman

tenro

34814

9

13607

79

21

48

71 5/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

sihor sar

wiha

Infranz

town

35032

7

13545

58

19

48

72 5/6/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

sihor sar

wiha

Infranz

town

35055

9

13546

35

19

26

73 6/6/2006 moist

tepid


a

Sogage Workam

ba

34198

3

13670

77

19

01

74 6/6/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

chihira Godgud

o

34534

7

13646

63

19

44

75 7/6/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Tekera 35372

0

13531

17

20

13

76 8/6/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Menziro Ras

mender

33743

6

13758

16

19

33

77 8/6/2006 moist

tepid


a

Bourbaux Jangira 33878

3

13745

29

19

20

78 8/6/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Menziro Wanzay

e

33853

9

13742

64

19

11



79 11/6/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Degola

chinchaye

Deldalit 34099

1

13720

08

19

68

80 11/6/200

6

moist

tepid

2_5 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Bahirginb 34027

8

13731

37

19

67


shrub

N/Gonder M/Bele

sa

Giragn ber Kahari 35499

9

13733

75

23

63

82 13/6/6 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Dengola

chinchaye

Abakaul

aye

34545

7

13735

72

19

92

83 13/6/6 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Das

dengez

Dengez 35226

5

13735

95

21

46

84 13/6/6 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Das

dengez

Dengez 35323

0

13735

86

21

82

85 17/6/6 moist

tepid


a

Amesafeg Luwama

riam

33251

1

13746

69

18

53

86 18/6/6 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land N/Gonder G/kete

ma

zezo

teklehyma

not

33083

7

13856

84

19

61

87 20/6/6 moist cool 15-30 Grass land N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye Gomeng

ie

34092

1

14095

30

27

54


land

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye Chilla 34240

8

14095

17

29

11


a


5

14092

00

28

82


a

Kossoye Abategu 34366

0

14076

49

28

01


a

Kossoye chelema

dur

34287

3

14085

88

28

57


Forest

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye chelema

dur

34285

4

14086

57

28

57


Forest

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye 34309

5

14096

72

29

65


land

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye chelema

dur

34301

5

14083

55

28

72


land

N/Gonder Woger

a


0

14078

79

28

38


land

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye 34324

9

14091

41

29

31


land

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Lay

Markeb

e

33880

3

14074

14

27

76


land

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Cechela 33773

8

14063

26

27

15

99 22/6/6 moist cool 15-30 Grass land N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Cechela 33774

7

14058

72

26

39


Forest

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Cechela 33785

6

14065

95

27

36


Forest

N/Gonder Woger

a

Kossoye Kezkazi

t

34092

4

14102

81

28

81


Forest

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Belangi

e

33696

7

14036

88

25

97

103 25/6/6 moist

tepid

15-30 Grass land N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Chira

ambezo

Balangi

e

33427

4

14025

33

23

21


land

N/Gonder Woger

a

Chira

ambezo

Majibar 33677

5

14034

11

25

53


Forest

N/Gonder Woger

a

Chira

ambezo

Majibar 33697

2

14036

47

25

90



106 25/6/9 moist

tepid


ma

Town wolaka 33497

0

13982

87

21

99

107 25/6/10 moist

tepid


ma

Town 33452

3

14012

66

23

04

108 26/6/6 moist

tepid

2_5 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/kete

ma

woleka wolaka 33414

4

13398

33

22

52

109 26/6/6 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder G/kete

ma

woleka wolaka 33415

8

13988

53

22

31


achiho

kerker bale

egzaber

Ginde

metaya

33242

0

14052

28

25

29


Forest

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

kerker bale

egzaber

Ginde

metaya

33129

6

14045

94

25

35


land

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

kerker bale

egzaber

Ginde

metaya

33089

9

14041

97

25

32

113 1/7/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 cultivted

land

N/Gonder chilega Alemtseha

y

Amora

defar

30264

0

13350

83

17

71

114 1/7/2006 moist

tepid

15-30 Grass land N/Gonder chilega Alemtseha

y

Amora

defar

30320

2

13852

39

17

54

115 2/7/2006 moist

tepid

5_8 cultivted

land


y

Mizawit 30228

5

13864

74

18

01

116 2/7/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 cultivated(

fattened

area)


y

Addis

alem

30219

6

13867

81

18

26

117 3/7/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 Grass land N/Gonder chilega Alemtseha

y

Ferefer 30014

9

13843

40

18

54

118 4/7/2006 moist cool 15-30 cultivated

land

N/Gonder chilega Werengeb Atoreye 32756

5

13989

82

25

60

119 4/7/2006 moist cool 15-30 Grass land N/Gonder chilega Werengeb Abuzogi

e

32863

9

13971

91

25

03

120 4/7/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder chilega Werengeb Abuzogi

e

32772

3

13965

24

24

52

121 5/7/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder chilega Delamba Anker 29640

0

13932

00

21

10

122 5/7/2006 moist

tepid

2_5 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder chilega Awurarda Kirat 29324

7

13894

18

20

74

123 5/7/2006 moist

tepid

5_8 cultivated

land

N/Gonder chilega Anguba Alesefer 29155

3

13902

96

21

82

124 5/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder chilega Awurarda 29544

9

13893

05

19

33

125 6//7/6 moist cool 15-30 cultivated

land

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

mawura Mawura

town

32646

0

14001

31

24

71


shrub

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Werengeb 32720

1

14008

24

25

26


achiho

Gonderoch

Mariam

Chillara 32492

0

13994

05

25

42


shrub

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

mawura Mawura

town

32635

4

14004

07

24

63

129 6/7/2006 moist cool 2_5 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Gonderoch

Mariam

chillara 32781

3

13994

06

25

57

130 6/7/2006 moist cool 15-30 culitvated

land

N/Gonder L/Arm

achiho

Gonderoch

Mariam

chillara 32537

2

13994

98

25

50

131 8/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Gendwa

balangab

Dawa 31752

9

13813

35

20

08

132 9/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Fentaye

Marchicha

Gallaey 29465

4

13653

11

18

88

133 9/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Shikisha Berbera 29680

4

13708

27

18

65



134 9/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Shikisha Berbera 29714

5

13706

88

19

00

135 9/7/2006 moist

tepid


ya

Guarhi Jibba 30326

8

13664

75

18

13

136 9/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Guarhi Jibba 30352

5

13667

38

18

48

137 9/7/2006 moist

tepid


ya

Meskele

kirstose

Darna 30885

1

13659

44

18

93

138 9/7/2006 moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Meskele

kirstose

darna 30892

8

13660

87

18

91

139 10/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 Forest

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Mengi Sesnios

plas

30538

4

13491

82

18

13

140 10/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Mengi Sesnios

plas

30351

0

13504

33

18

54

141 10/7/200

6

moist

tepid

15-30 wet land N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Mengi Sesnios

plas

30465

1

13494

65

17

92

142 10/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Gundi Terekesi

e

30662

3

13575

37

18

68

143 11/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 cultivated

land

N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Abrijja quami 31423

0

13556

81

18

36

144 11/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 wet land N/Gonder Dembi

ya

Abrijja 31523

1

13562

83

17

92

145 11/7/200

6

moist

tepid


ya

Abrijja quami 31047

3

13565

13

20

43

146 11/7/200

6

moist

tepid


ya

Meskele

kirstose

31036

9

13674

49

19

13

147 12/7/200

6

moist

tepid

0-2 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder G/Zuri

a

Burbuax 33929

9

13769

24

19

89

148 13/7/6 moist

tepid

0-2 Grass land N/Gonder chilega Kauk

genbela

Andeya

warka

28819

2

13657

53

19

49

149 13/7/6 moist

tepid

15-30 bush and

shrub

N/Gonder chilega Chandeba Amba

ferrar

28816

8

13695

50

19

90

150 13/7/6 moist

tepid

2_5 cultivated

land

N/Gonder chilega Chandeba 28486

1

13735

71

21

47



7.4 Gross Estimation of Values for Livestock Production and Services

S.No .Estimates of gross values of live animals in the sub-basin

A Livestock population Values and Coefficients

1 Cattle 2405113

2 Sheep 951982

3 Goats 549778

B Off-Take ratios

1 Cattle 0.07

2 Sheep 0.33

3 Goats 0.35

C Yield(Carcass Weight (Kg)

1 Cattle 108.3

2 Sheep 10

3 Goats 8.5

D Meat Production (Kg)

1 Cattle(A*B*C) 18233162

2 Sheep 3141541

3 Goats 1635590

E Hide and skin (number

1 Cattle (7%) 168,358

2 Sheep (30%) 285,595

3 Goat (35%) 192422

F Producer Price(Birr/Kg)

1 Cattle 36

2 Sheep 27

3 Goats 25

G Total values of production (Birr)

1 Cattle (D*E Birr) 656393820

2 Sheep 84821596

3 Goats 40889739

H Gross or total value of production( in Birr) 782105154

I Total value of hide and skin

1 cattle 10101474.6

2 sheep 11423784

3 goat 3848446

Total value 25373704.6

Sources, WoARD(2013), FAO,2004, Medac and MA,2011

Estimates of gross values of Milk Production in the sub-basin

S.No Milk Off-take variables Values and

Coefficients A Livestock population

1 Cattle In1000 2405

3 Goats in 1000 550

B Milk Animals ( Ratios of stock)

1 Cattle 0.22



3 Goats 0.25

C Yield( total milk per animal (Kg))

1 Cattle 2154

3 Goats 500

D Milk Production (tonne)

1 Cattle(A*B*C)*100/1000 113973

3 Goats 6872

E Producer Price(Birr/tonne)

1 Cattle 5845

3 Goats 9132

F. Total values of production (Birr)

1 Cattle (D*E Birr) 666175077

3 Goats 62757159

G

Gross or total value of production(

in Birr) 728932236

Sorces, WoARD(2013), FAO,2004, Medac and

MA,2011

S.No Estimates of gross values of poultry and Egg production in the sub-basin

I Chicken meat production

A Producer Animals/Slaughtered(1000head) = total 1924685

B Yield/Carcass weight(gram/animal 881

C Production /tonne 1696

D Price of Chicken meat(Birr/tonne) 39103

E Total values of Chicken Meat production /Birr 66318688

II Egg production

A Laying(1000 Head) 269456

B Ratio of layers 0.14

C Yield (gram/Chicken) 3589

C Production /tones/ 967

D Producers Price (birr/tonnes) 16124

E Total Values of egg production / Birr 15591908

F Grand total gross value of Poultry in Million 81.910596

Sources, WoARD (2013), FAO,2004, MoFED and MoA,2011

Estimation of Gross values of Honey production

S No

Beehive

type

Num

ber

of

beehi

ves

Honey

yield(Kg/hiv

e/year

Producti

on Kg

Producer

price of

honey/Kg

Total

value of

Honey in

Birr

% of

crude

bee

wax

Crude wax

Produce(Kg/a

nnum)

Average

get

price/Kg

Total

value of

Wax in

Birr

1

Transiti

onal

2198

52 7 1538964 22 33857208 20 307793 25 7694820

2

Traditio

nal 3120 15 46800 22 1029600 20 9360 25 234000



3 Modern

1874

1 25 468525 22 10307550 0 0 25 0

Total

2417

13 2054289 45194358 317152.8 7928820

Grand

Total 53123178

Sources, WoARD (2013), FAO,2004, MoFED and MoA,2011

S .No Estimates of Gross value of oxen traction Power Value

1 Total number of a pair of oxen 384148

2 Average number of days spent by oxen in land preparation 60

3 National average rental value of oxen per day( birr) 40

4 National value of oxen draught power in Birr 921955200

Estimates of Gross value of service of equines at age 3 years and above

Animal/Service type

Number of

Animal

Service

day/year

Rental

service (

Birr/day) Total value (Birr/year)

Hores

Transportation 9017 46 25 10369550

Draft 14544 42 35 21379680

Donakeys 0

Transportation 173133 80 15 207759600

Draft 6786 48 15 4885920

Mules 0

Transportation 22688 46 30 31309440

Draft 4945 42 40 8307600

Total 284011790

Sources, WOARD, CSA,2010/2011, MoFED and MoA, 2011

Estimates of Gross value of service of dung Produced

Descriptions Value

Cattle number 2405110

Dung production per cattle per year (Gk) 183

Price of dung (Birr/Kg) 0.31

Gross values of dung produced ( birr) 136441890

Source, WoARD(2013), MoFED and MoA (2011)

Summary of Phenotypic features of characterised poultry in the sub-basin.

S.N

o

Type Location Peculiar features Remar

ks Zone Woreda

1 Farta South Gndar Farta Crest head shape, pea comb type, block body shape



and yellow shank

2 Melo-

Hamusit

South Gndar Farta Crest head shape, lack of shank feather, yellow

shank colour

3 Gassay South Gondar Farta Crest head shape, lack of shank feather, yellow

shank colour

4 Tillili Awi and west gijam All Pea comb, lack of shank colour

5 Gasgie Nort Gondar Alefa Long necked and red in colour

6 Mecha West Gojam Mecha Plain and crest head shape and pea comb

Livestock species holding base on household data.

Source: ADSWE, 2014

No species Frequency (N) Mean

1 Cattle 3268 1.96

2 Cows 3205 1.86

3 Bulls 1975 1.44

4 Heifers 2152 1.57

5 Calve 2475 1.52

6 Sheep 2278 4.47

7 Goats 853 4.51

8 Donkeys 2063 1.43

9 Horses 312 1.48

10 Mules 302 1.41

11 Local chicken 3165 7.37

12 Improved chicken 406 4.06

13 Traditional hive 691 3.84

14 Transitional hive 70 2.56

15 Modern hive 186 2.11

Documents

Amhara National Regional State Bureau of Environmental ... · factories, oil processing factories at Bahir Dar, Gondar , Zone and Woreda towns), establishment of Jawe sugar factories